Datasets:

akkasi

/

multi_eurlex_en

like 0

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1888/86 of 18 June 1986 on the maximum total sulphur dioxide content of certain sparkling wines originating in the Community and prepared before 1 September 1986, and, for a transitional period, of imported sparkling wines THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 of 5 February 1979 on sparkling wines (1), as last maneded by Regulation (EEC) No 3310/85 (2), and in particular Articles 12 (4) and 16 (4) thereof, Whereas Articles 12 and 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 provide, with effect from 1 September 1986, for a reduction of 15 milligrams per litre in the maximum total sulphur dioxide content of sprakling wines, quality sparkling wines and quality sparkling wines produced in specified regions; Whereas, with regard to sparkling wines originating in the Community with the exception of Portugal, the first subparagraph of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 provides for the possibility of disposing of such products until stocks are exhaused if they have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 in the version thereof applicable before 1 September 1986; Whereas transitional provisions should also be laid down as regards imported sparkling wines and sparkling wines originating in Spain and Portugal and prepared before 1 September 1986, in order to avoid difficulties in disposing of such products; whereas such products should be allowed to be offered for a transitional period after that date where their total sulphur dioxide content complies with the Community provisions in force before 1 September 1986; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Sparkling wines originating in third countries and Portugal and imported into the Community before 1 September 1987 whose total sulphur dioxide content does not exceed the relevant levels laid down in Articles 12 (1) and 16 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 in the version thereof applicable before 1 September 1986 may be offered for direct human consumption until stocks are exhausted. In addition, the following may be offered for direct human consumption in the country of production and for export to third countries until stocks are exhaused: - sparkling wines originating in Spain and prepared before 1 September 1986 whose total sulphur dioxide content does not exceed the levels laid down by the Spanish or Community provisions in force before that date, - sparkling wines originating in Portugal and prepared before 1 January 1991 whose total sulphur dioxide content does not exceed the levels laid down by the Portuguese provisions in force before that date. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 1986. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 18 June 1986.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 13 August 2008 amending Decision 2005/928/EC on the harmonisation of the 169,4-169,8125 MHz frequency band in the Community (notified under document number C(2008) 4311) (Text with EEA relevance) (2008/673/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof, Whereas: (1) Commission Decision 2005/928/EC (2) harmonises the 169,4-169,8125 MHz frequency band in the Community. (2) The frequency plan contained in the Annex to Decision 2005/928/EC describes the channel raster which the different applications operating under the conditions set in this Decision should adhere to. Such a channel raster aims at enabling compatibility and facilitating coexistence of the applications allowed in these bands. (3) The frequency plan imposes a channel raster of 12,5 kHz in the 169,4000-169,4750 MHz band and a channel raster of 50 kHz in the 169,4875-169,5875 MHz band. (4) Following the adoption of Decision 2005/928/EC further investigations of the technical parameters defined in this Decision revealed that the channel raster arrangements in the bands 169,4000-169,4750 MHz and 169,4875-169,5875 MHz are considered unduly restrictive given the technological development. Allowing several channel raster options will increase the flexibility for the users to choose the optimal bandwidth up to 50 kHz in accordance with quality requirements of the specific applications. (5) The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) has confirmed that increasing the channel raster options in these bands can and should be allowed. (6) Decision 2005/928/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. By amending this Decision channels up to 50 kHz will be possible in the 169,4000-169,4750 MHz and 169,4875-169,5875 MHz bands. (7) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Decision 2005/928/EC is amended as follows: 1. In the 4th row of the frequency plan in the Annex the channel raster (in kHz) figure ‘12,5’ for channels 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b is replaced by ‘up to 50 kHz’. 2. In the 4th row of the frequency plan in the Annex the channel raster (in kHz) figure ‘50’ for channels 4b + 5 + 6a and 6b + 7 + 8a is replaced by ‘up to 50 kHz’. Article 2 Article 1 shall apply from 31 October 2008. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 13 August 2008.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 9 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE 1. INITIATION (1) On 30 June 2005, pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Commission announced, by a notice (notice of initiation) published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People’s Republic of China (the PRC), Malaysia and Thailand (the countries concerned). (2) The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 17 May 2005 by 29 Community producers of plastic sacks and bags, representing a major proportion (in this case more than 25 %) of the total Community production of plastic sacks and bags. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 2. PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING (3) The Commission officially advised the complainant Community producers, their association, other Community producers, the exporting producers, importers, suppliers and users as well as user associations known to be concerned and the representatives of the exporting countries of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set in the notice of initiation. (4) Given the large number of known exporting producers in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand, as well as the large number of known Community producers and importers, sampling for the determination of dumping and injury was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation (see below for further details regarding sampling). (5) In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned and to the authorities of the PRC. Some 108 companies and groups requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. All the companies and groups above also claimed IT should the investigation have established that they did not meet the conditions for MET. Three companies claimed IT only. (6) The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. In addition to questionnaire replies received from parties selected in the samples of exporters, importers and Community industry, replies to questionnaires were also received from two Community retailers. (7) A number of parties also made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the set time-limit and indicated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing. (8) The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the preliminary determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest and carried out investigations at the premises of the following companies: Community producers - SP Metal, Paris, France and its related companies SP Metal Biel, Zaragoza, Spain and Jet Sac SA, Auchel, France - Groupe Barbier SA, Ste Sigolene, France - Plasticos Romero SA, Murcia, Spain - Plasbel SA, Murcia, Spain - Alplast SA, Ste Marie aux Mines, France Unrelated importers in the Community - FIPP GmbH & Co KG and its related company DEISS GmbH & Co KG, Hamburg, Germany Exporting producers and related companies in the exporting countries PRC - Cedo Shanghai Ltd, Shanghai - Chun Yip Plastics (Shenzhen) Ltd, Shenzhen - Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd, Huizhou - Suzhou Guoxin Group Co., Ltd, Taicang - Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi - Zhongshan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co., Ltd, Zhongshan - Weifang Lefu Plastic Products Co., Ltd, Weifang - Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd, Longhai - Sunway Kordis (Shanghai) Ltd. and Shanghai Sunway Polysell Ltd, Shanghai - Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd, Nantong Malaysia - Dragonpak Industries (M) S/B, Johor Bahru - Europlastics Malaysia S/B, Shah Alam - Hond Tat Industries S/B, Klang - Plastic V S/B, Klang - Poly Carrier Industries S/B, Klang - Sido Bangun S/B, Negri Sembilan Thailand - King Pac Industrial Company Ltd, Chonburi - Multibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi - Naraipak Co., Ltd, Bangkok - Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok - Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakornpathorn Related importers in the Community - Cedo Limited UK, Telford, United Kingdom - Cedo GmbH, Mönchengladbach, Germany - Europackaging plc, Birmingham, United Kingdom - 3S’s Limited, Upton-upon-Severn, United Kingdom - Kordis Limited and Kordis BV, Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom 3. INVESTIGATION PERIOD (9) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 (investigation period or IP). The examination of injury covered the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2005 (period considered). B. SAMPLING 1. SAMPLING FOR EXPORTING PRODUCERS IN THE PRC, MALAYSIA AND THAILAND (10) As stated above, in view of the large number of exporting producers in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand, sampling was proposed in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. (11) In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers were requested to make themselves known within 15 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation and to provide basic information on their export and domestic sales, and the names and activities of all their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of the said product. The authorities in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand were also consulted. (12) Some 108 companies and groups in the PRC, 36 companies from Malaysia and 17 from Thailand came forward and provided the requested information within the given deadline. However, only 104 companies and groups from the PRC, 31 companies from Malaysia and 14 from Thailand reported exports to the Community during the investigation period. (13) Those exporting producers that exported the said product to the Community during the investigation period and expressed a wish to participate in the sample were considered as cooperating companies and were taken into account in the selection of the samples. (14) The cooperating exporting producers represented around 95 % of total exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Community and 96 % of Malaysia’s and 88 % of Thailand’s total exports. (15) The remaining companies were either traders or exporting producers without exports to the Community during the investigation period. Therefore, a dumping margin will not be determined for these companies. (16) Exporting producers which did not make themselves known within the aforesaid period were considered as not cooperating with the investigation. (17) According to Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the following criteria were taken into account in the selection of the sample: size of exporting producer with regard to export sales to the Community as well as size of exporting producer with regard to domestic sales. It was considered that, for the reasons set out below, the sample should include a sufficient number of companies selling on the domestic market. Therefore, a number of major exporting companies having representative domestic sales were included in the sample. (18) On this basis, the Commission originally selected samples of 10 Chinese exporting producers, six Malaysian exporting producers and six Thai exporting producers. The selected companies represented around 52 %, 62 % and 71 % of the exports of the said product to the Community from the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand respectively. (19) In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the cooperating exporting producers and the authorities of the countries concerned were given the opportunity to comment on the selection of the sample. (20) A number of Chinese exporters argued that they should have been included in the sample, because of particular circumstances regarding their companies such as: product types, business model, cost structure, or affiliation with Hong Kong or EU-based groups. However, it would have been impractical, and not required by the basic Regulation, to aim for a sample reflecting all the above factors, given the amount of information and the time available for the sample selection. Moreover, the basic Regulation allows limiting the investigation to the largest representative volume of exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. (21) One Chinese exporter argued that the Commission should, according to the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) of the WTO, have simply selected the exporters with the largest volume of export sales to the Community, without having regard to the volume of domestic sales. Article 6.10 ADA provides, inter alia, that a sample of exporters can be chosen based on ‘the largest percentage of the volume of the exports from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated’. This interpretation of Article 6.10 ADA has to be rejected. First, there is nothing in the wording of Article 6.10 ADA that precludes that exporters with representative domestic sales are also included in the sample. Second, the purpose of selecting a sample of exporting producers is to collect the highest possible representative data on the basis of which a dumping margin could be calculated. In this respect, it is essential that companies with domestic sales of the product concerned are included in the sample in order to be able to determine normal value and SG&A and profit according to Articles 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation. For companies found to fulfil the MET criteria, establishing normal value without sufficient information on such SG&A and profit would be problematic. The largest volume of exports that can reasonably be investigated should thus also include at least a sufficient number of companies with domestic sales in the IP. As a consequence, only the major exporting companies which also represented a major part of the domestic sales have been selected in accordance with Article 6.10 ADA and Article 17 of the basic Regulation. (22) During the investigation, it was found that Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd had in error declared large amounts of exports to the EC of the said product that they themselves had not produced, but had in fact processed for other exporting producers. Given the small amount of their actual sales of own-produced said product, the company was removed from the Chinese sample. However given that the company had already been inspected, it will in effect receive individual examination. (23) The Malaysian Plastic Manufacturers Association pointed out that one of the companies not selected in the sample had failed to report its local sales of plastic bags of a related company, and should have been selected for the sample. As the information about this reporting mistake was received in a timely manner, the Commission agreed to include that company in the sample, replacing one of the companies previously selected which had a smaller volume of export sales. (24) Questionnaires were sent for completion to the 22 originally sampled companies and replies from all of them were received within the given deadlines, with the exception of one Thai company which had been selected for the sample but ceased cooperation afterwards. (25) In view of the large number of countries and parties involved and the time constraints, the Commission concluded that no individual examination of exporting producers, with a view to the application of Articles 9(6) and 17(3) of the basic Regulation, could be granted because this would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time. Accordingly, the Commission informed all cooperating exporting producers that it did not intend to grant individual examinations if requested. Moreover, no such requests were received by the 40-day deadline stipulated in the notice of initiation. (26) It should be noted that one company in China not sampled, but cooperating with the investigation, submitted a request for change of name from Jiangmen Xiefeng Plastic Co., Ltd to Jiangmen Toptype Plastic Products Co., Ltd. Evidence was submitted that this was a change of name of the same legal entity and therefore no change was made otherwise to the company’s status, structure or ownership. As such the name of the company was amended to the new name in the Annex to this Regulation. 2. SAMPLING OF COMMUNITY PRODUCERS (27) In view of the large number of Community producers, sampling was proposed in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. For this purpose, the Commission requested Community producers to provide information concerning production and sales of the like product. (28) Thirty-four Community producers came forward and provided the information requested in the notice of initiation. A total of five companies (three in France and two in Spain) were selected for the sample as they represented the largest representative volume of production in the Community (around 18 %), which could be reasonably investigated within the time available. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the association of Community producers was consulted and raised no objection. All sampled Community producers cooperated and sent questionnaire replies within the deadlines. In addition, the remaining complainant producers and producers supporting the investigation, situated in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom, duly provided certain general data for the injury analysis. 3. SAMPLING OF IMPORTERS (29) In view of the large number of importers in the Community, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation. For these purposes, the Commission requested importers to provide information concerning imports and sales of the product concerned. (30) On the basis of the information received, the Commission selected five importers in three Member States, two in France, one in Germany and two in the United Kingdom. Two known associations of importers were consulted. These importers represented the largest representative volume of sales of known importers in the Community (around 9 %), which could be reasonably investigated within the time available. Two importers finally cooperated and sent questionnaire replies. 4. DISCLOSURE (31) All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the PRC and Thailand and terminating the proceeding as regards imports originating in Malaysia. They were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which definitive measures are imposed. (32) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 1. GENERAL (33) Plastic sacks and bags made of polyethylene are generally distributed through retail outlets to consumers, who use them mainly for purchased goods conveyance, food packing or household waste disposal. 2. THE PRODUCT CONCERNED (34) The product concerned is plastic sacks and bags, containing at least 20 % of polyethylene by weight and of a thickness not exceeding 100 micrometers (plastic bags) originating in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand. The product concerned falls within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90. (35) Plastic bags are produced from polyethylene polymers by extrusion in a continuous tubular form, through the injection of air, followed by cutting, and where applicable welding, printing and adding of handles and/or closure systems. The bags can be made from several densities of polyethylene and blended with other resins or additives. The material composition will affect the bag’s properties such as strength, durability or degradability which may be required for different applications. (36) In the course of the investigation, it was argued by the PRC authorities and by several importers and exporters that the investigation scope was too wide because it included items such as carrier bags, garbage bags, freezer bags, fruit and vegetable bags and other items which are allegedly different in terms of physical characteristics, pricing, sales channels, end-uses and consumer perception. In particular, one exporter and several importers requested that zipper bags (polythene bags with a zipper sealing function) should be excluded from the investigation scope due to alleged differences in raw material, production process, appearance, usage, distribution, customer perception and price. Another importer made a similar argument concerning money bags, which allegedly have some unique technical and physical characteristics and are only produced by a limited number of companies. (37) One Malaysian exporter further argued that a patented feature of the dispensing mechanism of some of their carrier bags meant that they should be excluded from the scope of the investigation, since bags with these features allegedly cannot be produced by the Community industry. However this patented feature, while intended to bring a functional advantage over other carrier bags, does not represent a sufficient difference in physical characteristics for the bags in question to be considered a separate product. Indeed, they remain basically interchangeable with other carrier bags, with or without similar patented systems. (38) While it is recognised that there are different types of plastic bags, which are designed for different applications including those mentioned above, the investigation showed that all these types of plastic bags, including those with patented features, share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics: they are basically flexible containers made from polyethylene film used for the packaging and conveyance of goods. The use of the plastic bags is always the same, although the ‘goods’ being conveyed or packed may vary (e.g. retail items, foodstuffs, waste). In this respect it should be noticed that the basic Regulation does not require that investigations cover products that are identical in all aspects, e.g. in terms of production process, pricing, sales channels, uses or consumer perception. Rather, it has been the Commission’s consistent practice to require that for product types to be considered as a single product it is enough that they share the same basic physical, technical and/or chemical characteristics. (39) Consequently, all different types of plastic bags, falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 originating in the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand are regarded as one single product for the purpose of the present investigation. 3. LIKE PRODUCT (40) The Commission found that plastic bags produced and sold on the respective domestic markets in the PRC, Malaysia (which also served as an analogue country) and Thailand and those exported to the Community from the countries concerned, as well as those produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry, have the same physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses. It is therefore concluded that all are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. D. DUMPING 1. GENERAL METHODOLOGY (41) The general methodology set out below has been applied to all cooperating exporting producers in Malaysia and Thailand, as well as for the cooperating Chinese exporting producers for which MET was granted. The presentation of the findings on dumping for each of the countries concerned therefore only describes matters specific to each exporting country. 1.1. Normal value (42) In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission first examined for each exporting producer whether the domestic sales of the product concerned to independent customers were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Community. (43) The Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the companies having overall representative domestic sales, which were identical or directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Community. The criteria used were the following: type of raw material used, dimensions, colouring, printing, closure, handles and presentation of the plastic bags. (44) Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered as sufficiently representative when the volume of that product type sold on the domestic market to independent customers during the investigation period represented 5 % or more of the total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Community. (45) The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each type of plastic bag sold domestically in representative quantities by each company in each exporting country could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers, of each exported product type, on the domestic market during the investigation period: (46) Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price. This price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. (47) Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only, provided that these sales represented 10 % or more of the total sales volume of that type. (48) Where the volume of profitable sales of any product type represented less than 10 % of the total sales volume of that type, it was considered that this particular type was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value. (49) Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by an exporting producer could not be used in order to establish normal value, another method had to be applied. In this regard, the Commission used constructed normal value, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. (50) Normal value was constructed by adding to each exporter’s manufacturing costs of the exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and a reasonable margin of profit. (51) In all cases SG&A and profit were established pursuant to the methods set out in Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission examined whether the SG&A incurred and the profit realised by each of the exporting producers concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable data. 1.2. Export price (52) In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the Community, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. (53) Where the export sale was made via related importers based in the Community, the export price was constructed, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the price at which the imported products were first resold to an independent buyer, duly adjusted for all costs incurred between importation and resale, as well as a reasonable margin for SG&A and profits. In this regard, the related importers' own SG&A costs were used. The profit margin was established on the basis of the information available from cooperating unrelated importers. 1.3. Comparison (54) The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-factory basis. (55) For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. For all investigated exporting producers, allowances for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs and commissions were granted where applicable and justified. 1.4. Dumping margins (56) Pursuant to Articles 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value by product type with a weighted average export price by product type as established above. (57) The dumping margin for cooperating exporting producers, which made themselves known in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, but were not part of the sample, has been established on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the companies in the sample pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. (58) It has been the consistent practice of the Commission to consider related exporting producers or exporting producers belonging to the same group as one single entity for the determination of a dumping margin and thus to establish one single dumping margin for them. This is in particular because calculating individual dumping margins might encourage circumvention of anti-dumping measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related exporting producers to channel their exports to the Community through the company with the lowest individual dumping margin. (59) In accordance with this practice, the related exporting producers belonging to the same groups were regarded as one single entity and attributed one single dumping margin which was calculated on the basis of the weighted average of the dumping margins of the cooperating producers in the respective groups. (60) In order to determine the dumping margin for non-cooperating exporting producers, the level of non-cooperation was first established. To this end, the volume of exports to the Community reported by the cooperating exporting producers was compared with the equivalent Eurostat import statistics. (61) As the level of cooperation in Malaysia and Thailand was high (above 85 %) it was considered appropriate to set the residual dumping margin for any non-cooperating exporting producers in each of these countries concerned at the level of the highest duty imposed on a cooperating exporter. (62) As regards China, it should be noted that although overall cooperation was high, three exporting producers provided false and misleading information and were thus declared non-cooperating according to Article 18 of the basic Regulation as described below. As these companies deliberately abstained from cooperation, the residual dumping margin for any non-cooperating exporting producer in the PRC was based on facts available. It was therefore considered appropriate that the residual dumping margin should be set at the level of the highest margins established for representative types imposed on a cooperating exporter not granted MET or IT. There were no indications that the non-cooperating exporting producers dumped at a lower level. 2. MALAYSIA 2.1. Normal value (63) Three companies had globally representative domestic sales. However, given the lack of matching domestic and exported types, normal value had to be constructed for these companies in accordance with the methodology set out above. For the three companies without representative domestic sales, normal value also had to be constructed in accordance with the methodology set out above. (64) For the three companies with representative domestic sales, their profit made in the ordinary course of trade was used to construct their normal value, as well as domestic SG&A based on their own domestic sales. (65) For the three companies without representative domestic sales, an amount for SG&A expenses was determined on the basis of the average SG&A of the three companies with domestic sales. (66) Since only one Malaysian exporter had overall profitable domestic sales of the like product, the average level of profit achieved on domestic sales of the same general category of products, 5,5 %, was used to construct normal value for the three companies with no domestic sales, in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. 2.2. Export price (67) The six exporting producers made export sales to the Community either directly to independent customers or through related trading companies located in the Community and Indonesia. Where the export sale was made via related importers based in the Community, the export price was constructed, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, as set out in recital 53 above. 2.3. Comparison (68) The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis, as described in recitals 54 and 55 above, with adjustments, where appropriate, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. (69) For the sales channelled through Indonesia, an adjustment of 3,3 % for commissions was applied in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. The amount for commissions was based on the selling, general and administrative costs of the Indonesian company together with a profit margin of 3 %. Given that the profit of the Indonesian company was influenced by sales between related companies, the 3 % profit margin was determined on the basis of that achieved by an unrelated trader. (70) Another exporter claimed that an adjustment should be added to their sales prices in the Community to account for the fact that their latest (after the IP) contract with the end customer allows for a price increase, allegedly to compensate the exporter for losses incurred during the IP due to raw material increase. Since no price adjustment was effected during the IP and there is no evidence of a relation between the new contract and the past evolution of costs, this cannot be granted. 2.4. Dumping margins (71) The dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: - Dragonpak Industries (M) S/B, Johor Bahru 0 % - Europlastics Malaysia S/B, Shah Alam 0 % - Hond Tat Industries S/B, Klang 4,0 % - Plastic V S/B, Klang 0 % - Poly Carrier Industries S/B, Klang 0 % - Sido Bangun S/B, Negri Sembilan 9,1 % - Cooperating exporting producers not in the sample 7,3 % - All other companies 9,1 % (72) The Commission examined whether the country-wide level of dumping for Malaysia could be shown to be above the de minimis 2 % level as provided in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. It was considered appropriate for this purpose to extrapolate the results of the sample, including the companies with no dumping, to estimate the level of dumping of the non-sampled companies. The amount of dumping in the sample, expressed as a percentage of the CIF value of exports of the sample, was below 2 %. Therefore the overall dumping margin established for Malaysia was below the de minimis level. In these circumstances, the proceeding should be terminated as regards imports of the product concerned originating in Malaysia and no duties should be imposed. (73) The Community industry argued that Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation does not provide for the determination of a countrywide de minimis dumping margin. (74) This interpretation was rejected by the Commission. Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation clearly states that a proceeding must be terminated where the margin of dumping is less than 2 %. As a proceeding is opened against a country, this refers specifically to a country-wide margin. (75) The Community industry also argued that Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation provides that zero and de minimis margins should be disregarded when calculating the dumping duty applicable to cooperating exporting producers outside the sample. However, this article merely establishes a maximum duty applicable to those exporting producers, when duties are to be applied. Given that the Malaysian exporting producers found dumping represent only a minor share of the total exports from Malaysia, it was considered appropriate, as mentioned in recital 72 above, to base the country-wide calculation on the extrapolation of the results of the whole sample. 3. THAILAND 3.1. Normal value (76) Three companies had globally representative domestic sales. However, given the lack of matching domestic and exported types, normal value had to be constructed for these companies in accordance with the methodology set above. For the companies without representative domestic sales, normal value also had to be constructed in accordance with the methodology set out above. (77) For those three companies, domestic SG&A based on their own domestic sales was used. For the two companies without representative domestic sales, an amount for SG&A expenses was determined on the basis of the average SG&A of the three companies with domestic sales. (78) For two of the companies with representative domestic sales, profit made in the ordinary course of trade was used. For the third company with representative domestic sales, their own profit could not be used as less than 10 % of the sales were made in the ordinary course of trade. (79) Since no Thai exporter had overall profitable domestic sales, a reasonable profit margin, based on the profit of one Thai company on the sales in the domestic market of the same general category of products was used to construct normal value for the two companies with no domestic sales, and for the one company having less than 10 % of domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. 3.2. Export price (80) The exports of the five cooperating exporting producers were made directly to independent customers in the Community. The export prices were therefore based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 3.3. Comparison (81) The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis, as described above, with adjustments, where appropriate, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. 3.4. Dumping margins (82) The dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: - King Pac Industrial Co Ltd, Chonburi and Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd, Bangkok 14,3 % - Multibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi 5,1 % - Naraipak Co., Ltd and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok 10,4 % - Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok 6,8 % - Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakhonpathom 5,8 % - Cooperating exporting producers not in the sample 7,9 % - All other companies 14,3 % 4. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 4.1. Market economy treatment (MET) and individual treatment (83) In anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation for those exporting producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c). Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are summarised below: 1. business decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions and without significant State interference; 2. accounting records are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes; 3. there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system; 4. legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws; and 5. currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate. (84) From the cooperating exporting producers in the PRC considered for sampling, 108 requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers within the given deadlines. Three companies claimed IT only and returned the MET claim form partially completed as requested. For the 10 companies investigated, the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified information submitted in the MET claims at the premises of the companies in question. (85) It has been concluded that of the 10 Chinese exporting producers investigated, seven have demonstrated that they fulfil the five criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, and should therefore be granted MET, while it was determined for one exporting producer that it should not be granted MET. (86) Furthermore, for the two remaining Chinese exporting producers investigated and one exporting producer not selected in the sample, it was found that they provided false and misleading information within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. (87) Two exporting producers did not declare their relationship with each other in their respective replies to the market economy claim form and anti-dumping questionnaire response and one of them submitted falsified evidence in order to partly hide the existing relationship. (88) In this context, it should be noted that is the Commission’s consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for MET. This is necessary to avoid the channelling of sales of a group of companies via one of the related companies in the group with an individual duty rate and MES status, should measures be imposed. Therefore, in cases where a subsidiary or any other related company is a producer and/or a seller of the product concerned, all such related companies have to be declared as being related to ensure that the related companies receive one dumping margin, should measures be imposed. Furthermore, all related companies involved in the production or sales of the product concerned have to provide a reply to the MET claim form in order that an examination can be made as to whether they also meet the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. All related producers would also have to reply to the questionnaire. (89) In the present case, although both companies individually complied with their obligation to submit a MET claim form, the related companies attempted to hide their relationship. As the relationship was not disclosed, one of the two related companies was not investigated together with the other one which was selected in the sample, as would normally have been the case. The information submitted to the Commission did thus not allow for proper investigation of all the related companies in the group. This led to the result that it could not be established that the group, as a whole, fulfilled the conditions for MET. (90) As such, both the investigated exporting producer and its related company, a producer involved in the production and sale of the product concerned, were declared non-cooperating exporting producers. (91) For the other remaining company it was found evidence that it had submitted knowingly wrong information in its questionnaire reply as far as export sales were concerned as well as falsified export invoices during the verification visit, as described in recital 112. It was considered that since it had been declared a non-cooperating exporter, no determination concerning their MET claim was relevant, as no individual margin could be calculated for this company in the present circumstances. (92) The exporting producers concerned and the Community industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings. (93) The Chinese exporting producer referred to in recital 85 could not demonstrate that it fulfilled criteria 1, 2 and 3 above and was therefore refused MET. The investigation of this company and its related companies showed that this group includes two producing entities, one being a Chinese company and the other a branch in China of the Hong Kong parent company. The company was not able to demonstrate that the management of this branch is not influenced by the Chinese State. Furthermore, the business licence of the Chinese producing company states that a minimum percentage of the output should be exported. The company claimed that it could obtain from the local authorities the permission to sell domestically, i.e. obtain an unrestricted business licence. However, it did not substantiate this allegation and neither asked for the removal of the apparent restriction from its business licence, nor changed its Articles of Association in which the export requirement was also included. Consequently, it is concluded that the company did not provide sufficient evidence that it can freely and flexibly sell according to market signals, which would include being able to sell domestically. This restriction stems from significant State interference, i.e. a business licence which limits the company's scope of activity to the export market. (94) The above means that the company’s claim for individual treatment (IT) was also rejected as the company failed the criteria set out in Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation namely that export prices and quantities were freely determined. (95) In regard to criterion 2, given that the branch of the Hong Kong parent company is run on a cash basis, it is considered that its accounts do not comply with the accrual principle in accordance with international accounting standards (IAS). Furthermore, the lack of separation in the operations of this branch from those of the other producing company casts serious doubts on the accuracy of the accounts, in particular relating to costs, of both entities. Therefore the second criterion for MET cannot be considered to be fulfilled. (96) As for the land use rights and factory building of this branch, the company did not clearly demonstrate how they were acquired, or whether they are subject to depreciation. Therefore the third criterion for MET cannot be considered to be fulfilled given that the company has not demonstrated that there are no distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system in relation to land use rights and the acquisition of the factory buildings. (97) Another Chinese exporting producer had in its business licence and Articles of Association a provision stating that 100 % of the output of the company should be exported. As such, the company was subject to an export obligation during the IP and the Commission initially concluded that it was not free to take business decisions according to market signals and therefore, the first MET criterion was not met. However, this company submitted evidence that these restrictions had been removed in March 2006. The company also substantiated its decision not to sell in the domestic market in the period up to and including the IP by providing evidence that this decision was taken exclusively in view of the situation of the company and its market prospects, and was therefore, despite the export sales requirement in the business licence, in effect, free from State interference. Given that the company’s business licence no longer contains the export sales requirement, and that the company substantiated its claim that the apparent restriction was already obsolete before its removal, the company meets the first MET criterion. (98) The Chinese government and several exporters argued that the Commission only made a decision on the MET status of the sampled companies, thus failing to address the MET claims of around 100 non-sampled companies. According to their claim, the Commission is obliged to make individual determinations with regard to submitted MET claims irrespectively whether an exporter is sampled or not. (99) It should first be noted that the Commission was faced in this proceeding with an unprecedentedly large number of cooperating exporters, i.e. more than 100. Against this background, the Commission had to ensure that the investigation could be carried out with the available resources, within the legal time frame and without compromising the standards of assessment of MET claims. (100) The Commission considers that the existing provision on sampling (Article 17 of the basic Regulation) fully encompasses the situation of companies claiming MET. Indeed, exporters are by the nature of the sampling exercise denied individual assessment in both market economy countries and in economies in transition, and the conclusions reached for the sample are extended to them. (101) Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out a general method to deal with situations where an individual examination is no longer possible due to the high number of companies involved, i.e. the use of a representative sample. There is no reason why this method cannot equally be applied where the high number of companies involved includes a high number of companies requesting MET. (102) Indeed, the question whether a sampled company applied for and received MET/IT or not is a technical question and only relevant for the methodology to determine the dumping margin. It only affects the data used for their dumping calculation, either the own data of the company or analogue country data is used. As in any other sampling case, a weighted average of all sampled companies is established, regardless of the methodology applied for the dumping calculation in respect of each company as a result of the MET/IT assessment. MET/IT should thus not prevent the application of normal sampling techniques. (103) The key rationale of sampling is to balance administrative necessities to allow a case assessment in due time and within the margin of mandatory deadlines, with an individualised analysis to the best extent possible. The number of requests for MET in this case was so substantial that an individual examination of the requests - as sometimes done in other cases - was administratively impossible. Therefore, it was considered reasonable to apply equally to all non-sampled companies the weighted average margin resulting from all the companies selected for the sample, according to the criteria set out in recital 17, with no distinction being made between companies obtaining MET/IT or not. (104) The Community industry contested the granting of MET to five of the companies detailed above. (105) The Community industry argued that one of the companies granted MET is widely regarded as a State company, and that having been until recently one of the major State-owned trading groups, it is still likely to benefit from a favourable position with regard to the Chinese State, and be influenced by it. The Community industry also pointed out that the transfer of assets from the former state-owned company to the current company has potential carry-over effects. The Commission verified the ownership and control structures of this company and concluded that since 2002 it has been managed by private investors, free from State control. The Commission also examined the transfer of assets from the State-owned company and is satisfied that it took place under market economy conditions. No evidence has been presented that would challenge those conclusions. The Community industry also argued that because the company has benefited from an export subsidy it should not be granted MET. However, the amount and nature of this subsidy do not justify that MET be refused. (106) Concerning another company granted MET, the Community industry claimed that since its exports are largely manufactured through tolling arrangements with the company referred to above it should also be denied MET. However, given that it has been found that the first mentioned company fulfils the MET criteria, there are no grounds to consider that this company does not fulfil the criteria because of the tolling arrangement between the two companies. (107) Concerning a third company granted MET, the Community industry considered that the fact that the company has yet to make a profit means that it cannot be operating under market economy conditions. However the Commission considered that this is not abnormal during the start-up phase and is compatible with market economy conditions. The Community industry also argued that the fact that the company’s business licence contained during the IP a minimum export requirement is incompatible with the first MET criterion. The Commission however considers that this did not amount to an effective restriction during the IP. Firstly because the restriction was removed in the 2005 business licence, and secondly because the percentage of export sales was always significantly above the threshold stipulated in the old business licence, which indicates that the restriction in the business licence was already obsolete. Finally, the Community industry argued that an auditor’s remark concerning the valuation of raw materials by this third company means that its accounts are not reliable. The Commission however considers that the fact that the auditor made this remark, and that the company took measures to rectify the situation, confirms that its accounts are independently audited and reliable. (108) Concerning a fourth company granted MET, the Community industry claimed that there was state interference in the labour policy of the company as the local administration approved the labour contract used. However this approval was for the structure of the template contract, and not its specific terms. As such, this was not considered state interference. (109) Finally the Community industry disputed the granting of MET to a fifth company whose Articles of Association contained, during the IP, a provision that all production should be exported. However, this company sold the product concerned on the Chinese domestic market both before and during the IP. In 2005 the company removed any restrictions from its Articles of Association and in these circumstances there is no reason for MET not to be granted. (110) The two Chinese exporting producers mentioned in recitals 87 to 90 which were declared non-cooperating, objected to the Commission’s services conclusions that they should be treated as non-cooperating and should be denied MET. However, the companies did not provide a convincing explanation or element that would refute the evidence which is at the disposal of the Commission and was collected during the on-the-spot verification visits at the premises of one of the companies. It was therefore confirmed that they should be treated as non-cooperating producers in this proceeding and denied MET accordingly. (111) The Advisory Committee was consulted and the parties directly concerned were informed accordingly. The main arguments raised by exporters and the Community industry have already been addressed above. 4.2. Non-cooperation of companies with the investigation (112) Various allegations were received by the Commission concerning the company described in the latter part of recital 86 which placed in question the validity of the information received by the Commission during the on-the-spot investigation, in their MET claim and their questionnaire response. These allegations were verified and it was found indeed that the export invoices submitted during the on-the-spot verification must have been manipulated to pretend a considerably higher export price. (113) The evidence was presented to the company, which contested the view that this was sufficient to consider the company not cooperating with the investigation under Article 18 of the basic Regulation. However it was unable to explain the difference between these documents, and as such it was confirmed that it should be treated as non-cooperating in this proceeding. Indeed, given the nature of the non-cooperation, i.e. the submission of wrong information and the falsification of documents, as well as the time when this was found out, i.e. towards the very end of the investigation, the information submitted by this company has to be rejected totally as it cannot be ruled out that other information and documents submitted are equally affected by such behaviour. 4.3. Normal value 4.3.1. Determination of normal value for exporting producers granted MET (114) Three companies of the seven granted MET had globally representative domestic sales. However, given the lack of matching domestic and exported types, normal value had to be constructed for these companies in accordance with the methodology set out above. For the remaining four companies without representative domestic sales, normal value also had to be constructed in accordance with the methodology set out above. (115) For the three companies with representative domestic sales, their profit made in the ordinary course of trade was used, as well as domestic SG&A based on their own domestic sales. (116) For the four remaining companies granted MET who did not have representative domestic sales, an amount for SG&A expenses was determined on the basis of the average SG&A of the three companies with representative domestic sales. (117) As only one Chinese exporting producer granted MET had overall profitable domestic sales of the like product, a reasonable profit margin, based on the profit of this one company on the sales in the domestic market of the same general category of products, was used to construct normal value for the four companies with no domestic sales, in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. 4.3.2. Determination of normal value for exporting producers not granted MET (a) Analogue country (118) According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in economies in transition, normal value for exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country. (119) In the notice of initiation, the United States was proposed as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC. The Commission invited all interested parties to comment on this. (120) Various interested parties submitted comments proposing Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia or India as the analogue country. Information was already available relating to producers in Malaysia and Thailand through their cooperation in this investigation. In addition, other known companies were contacted in the United States, Indonesia and India with a view to determining whether those countries could be used as analogue countries. Only one company in the United States and two companies in India indicated their willingness to cooperate, but no questionnaire replies were received from any of these producers. (121) In the absence of cooperation from companies in the other possible analogue countries, the suitability of Malaysia was examined. It was found that Malaysia has a representative domestic market, where a wide range of types of the product concerned are produced and sold and a large number of suppliers ensured a sufficient level of competition. The investigation established that significant domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade were made by three cooperating sampled exporting producers in Malaysia. (122) Following the disclosure of the Commission information document which proposed Malaysia as analogue country, the Community industry argued that the Commission should use the USA as an analogue country, given the small domestic market in Malaysia and the high import duties in force compared to those of the United States. (123) This argument was rejected given the significant domestic sales in Malaysia of the product concerned. Furthermore, it was found, that, while the import duties in Malaysia were high (30 %), imports from ASEAN countries, which were significant, benefited from a preferential rate (5 %) that was in line with duties in the USA. It should also be noted that despite the best efforts of the Commission no cooperation from any US producer of the product concerned was forthcoming. (124) Given the lack of cooperation from companies in the USA, India and Indonesia, and the finding of no dumping from Malaysia, it was decided to use Malaysia as analogue country for the PRC. (b) Normal value (125) Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the cooperating exporting producer not granted MET was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of prices paid or payable on the domestic market of Malaysia, for product types which were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade, in accordance with the methodology set out above. Where necessary, those prices were adjusted so as to ensure a fair comparison with those product types exported to the Community by the Chinese producer concerned. (126) As a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price, in the ordinary course of trade, to unrelated customers by the cooperating producers in Malaysia with representative domestic sales. 4.4. Export price (127) The Chinese exporting producers made export sales to the Community either directly to independent customers or through trading companies located in Hong Kong and the Community. Export prices were determined using the general methodology set out above. For the sales channelled through related sales companies in Hong Kong, an adjustment for commissions was applied in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation where it was shown that these related sales companies performed the duties of a commission agent. The amount for commission was based on the SG&A expenses of the sales company and a profit margin of 3 % was used based on the information gathered from unrelated traders in HK. 4.5. Comparison (128) The normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis, as described above, with adjustments, where appropriate, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. (129) One Chinese exporting producer claimed an adjustment under Article 2(10)(d) of the basic Regulation, corresponding to the market value of the difference in levels of trade between the export sales and some of the sales in the domestic market. However, the amounts claimed by the company could not be supported through the corresponding difference in price levels in the domestic market and the adjustment was therefore not granted. 4.6. Dumping margins (130) The dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following: - Cedo (Shanghai) Limited and Cedo (Shanghai) Household Wrappings Co., Ltd, Shanghai 7,4 % - Chun Yip Plastics (Shenzhen) Ltd, Shenzhen 14,8 % - Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co., Ltd, Huizhou 4,8 % - Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd, Longhai 5,1 % - Sunway Kordis (Shanghai) Ltd. and Shanghai Sunway Polysell Ltd, Shanghai 4,8 % - Suzhou Guoxin Group Co. Ltd, Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Yihe Import & Export Co., Ltd, Taicang Dongyuan Plastic Co., Ltd and Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd, Taicang 7,8 % - Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co., Ltd, Zhongshan 5,7 % - Sampled cooperating exporting producers not granted IT, and cooperating exporting producers not in the sample 8,4 % - Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi (not part of the sample) 12,8 % - All other companies 28,8 % (131) A dumping margin was calculated for the cooperating company in the sample that was not granted MET or IT, as shown above, for the purpose of calculating an average dumping margin for the entire sample. However, that company will not receive an individual duty rate, as described below in recital 227, since it was not granted MET or IT. E. INJURY 1. COMMUNITY PRODUCTION (132) The product concerned is manufactured in the Community by hundreds of producers. The industry is very fragmented and comprises predominantly small and medium sized companies. (133) In calculating Community production, during the IP, the estimated Community consumption estimated as explained in recitals 158 and 159 was taken as a starting point. Imports into the Community, as registered by Eurostat, were subtracted from the consumption figure. The resulting production figure was adjusted, where necessary, on the basis of information submitted by national associations of producers. This quantity was subsequently reduced with the production quantities of the companies not included in the definition of Community industry as referred to in recital 153. The calculation resulted in a total Community production of 1 175 000 tonnes. (134) Certain exporting producers, importers and retailers argued that the percentage of the Community industry’s production in relation to the total Community production was below 25 %, and therefore the proceeding should be terminated due to the lack of support for the case. This submission was based on the argument that according to a major commercial market intelligence provider, AMI (3), the estimated quantity of extruded polyethylene film used for the production of the like product would account for more than the Community production figure used in the assessment of support. (135) AMI provides certain information concerning the polyethylene film industry in its following two reports referred to by certain parties: - polyethylene film extruders, 6th edition (ISBN 1 904188 12 5), and - polyethylene film industry in Europe, 7th edition (and ISBN 1 904188 17 6) (136) At the Commission's request AMI gave permission to reproduce extracts of the reports referred to above. It should be noted that, in the ‘Publisher’s notice’ to these reports, AMI mentions that ‘no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors or omissions in that information, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause, and no responsibility is accepted with regard to the standing of any firms and companies mentioned’. Furthermore, the permission to reproduce information contained in the above reports was obtained only subject to the following specific disclaimer: ‘(AMI) are not responsible for any misinterpretation of our information on the part of any of the industry contacts who have liaised with (the Commission) or indeed interpretation put on (AMI) data by the European Commission’. (137) It should also be noted that, whereas AMI provides certain information concerning the polyethylene film industry in the two abovementioned reports, it does not present any estimation of the market size of the product under investigation in the Community as such. The AMI reports estimate the end-use applications of extruded polyethylene film as follows (4): Product group % of end-use applications of polyethylene film i) Coex/laminating film 8,2 % ii) Other film 6,8 % iii) Shrink film 13,8 % iv) Stretch film 14,4 % v) Agriculture/building 8,0 % vi) Film on the reel 15,3 % vii) Heavy duty sacks 7,5 % viii) Refuse sacks 5,8 % ix) Shoppers 8,3 % x) Other bags/sacks 11,9 % Total 100 % (138) The AMI reports (5) do not define the precise methods for the calculation of production figures or consumption of raw materials. It is estimated in the reports that the consumption of polyethylene for film extrusion in Europe, as defined in recital 139, would have been 7 699 000 tonnes in 2004. When mentioning production, AMI refers to throughput figures, which, as shown by the investigation, would usually represent the quantity of polyethylene processed through an extruder. With regard to sacks and bags production, this throughput figure would contain quantities of industrial waste (cutting waste, start-up waste and other inferior quality extruded film) which is effectively recycled in the process. Therefore, recycling of this waste would result in double counting because certain quantities of the originally virgin raw material are put through the extrusion process more than once. (139) AMI expresses all production figures as percentages representing end use applications of consumption of polyethylene for film extrusion in Europe. The geographical coverage of the report is France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg), Scandinavia (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden), Spain, other Western Europe (Austria, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland) and Central Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech and Slovak Republics) (6). The report does not cover Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus of the Member States but it does cover Switzerland, Norway and Romania which do not fall under the scope if this investigation. (140) As the AMI figures cover a geographical region different from that of the Community, the consumption of polyethylene for extrusion in the Community had first to be established. In this regard, two polyethylene resin suppliers in the Community submitted that the consumption of polyethylene resin for film extrusion ranged between 6 100 000 and 6 500 000 tonnes in the Community during 2004. The quantities referred to below have, therefore, been calculated by using this range of consumption. (141) The parties referred to in recital 134 argued that categories (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x) of the categories listed above in recital 137 should be included in the product under investigation in part or in full. (142) It seems clear that the category ‘shoppers’ would fall in the product under investigation based on their physical characteristics representing 8,3 % (i.e. from 506 300 to 539 500 tonnes) of the end uses. However, it is also likely that part of the refuse sacks, representing in total 5,8 % (i.e. from 353 800 to 377 000 tonnes) of the end uses, does not fall under this definition because refuse sacks are likely to include sacks of more than 100 microns in thickness and thus part of this category should be excluded from the definition. (143) Certain parties alleged that up to 65 % of the category called ‘film on the reel’ representing 15,3 % (7) of the total end uses) would fall under the definition of the product under investigation. In this regard it is recalled that AMI itself mentions this category as containing uses ‘such as laundry film, hygiene film, tissue overwrap and general surface protection films’. It is to be noted that the mentioned end-use applications are defined as ‘film’ and thus do not fall under the category of bags and sacks. Moreover, the on-the-spot verifications carried out in the course of the investigation at the premises of seven production plants of five Community producers in two countries showed that film on the reel, extruded externally, was not used in the production of the like product. Furthermore, the verification visits carried out at the premises of 21 exporting producers in the three countries concerned gave no support to the claim that film on the reel, extruded externally, would be used in the production of the product concerned. Based on the above, the argument that a large part of the category ‘film on the reel’ should be included in the production of the like product in the Community had to be rejected. (144) It was also claimed by some parties that the end use application defined in the report as ‘other bags/sacks’, representing 11,9 % (8) of the total end uses, should be included in the Community production figures. It is to be noted that these parties did not substantiate this claim in terms of quantities. This category is reported as ‘other film’ in ‘AMI's guide to the polyethylene industry in Europe’ in its country-specific production figures and is not defined as bags or sacks on this level. Whilst it is unclear which products are included by AMI in the category ‘other sacks and bags’, at least all those products not falling under the product description should be excluded from the estimate. In this regard, according to certain parties, the category other ‘sacks and bags’ also includes film used for ‘FFS - packaging’ for food or ‘form, fill and seal - packaging’, which is a type of packaging where a bag is formed, filled and sealed in an integrated process. FFS equipment is typically fully automatic. This product is not sold as bags or sacks nor do imports of this product fall within CN codes 3923 21 00, 3923 29 10. and 3923 29 90. Given that the estimates of the interested parties, concerning the share of the product under investigation in this group, varied between 15 % and 100 % and were not substantiated it was not possible to make an accurate estimation as to which proportion of this group should be included in the product under investigation. Therefore, in view of the fact that there was an absence of any substantiated information in this regard, it was considered reasonable to include 50 % of this product category for the purposes of this calculation. The resulting production in this group would thus be in the range from 363 000 to 387 000 tonnes. (145) Certain parties claimed that up to 1 million tonnes of recycled material would be used for the production of the like product. According to AMI approximately 1 million tonnes (9) of reclaimed material would indeed be used in polyethylene extrusion. AMI does not specify into which particular product categories this usage can be allocated. Moreover, the on-the-spot verifications showed that there is a very limited supply of post-consumer recycled material on the market, whilst industrial waste created in the production process is efficiently recycled. In this regard, it is to be noted that industrial waste is already included in the production figures when used as virgin material and thus any inclusion of this quantity in the production would result in double counting. The investigation showed that post-consumer recycled material is mainly used for production of refuse sacks. Certain parties argued that up to 25 % of the raw material of this category of the like product would be post-consumer recycled material. Based on the information received from interested parties this could amount to 20 % of the production of these bags. As this quantity is not already included in AMI’s end-use estimate of this product this quantity should be added on top of this production estimate. Therefore, a corresponding adjustment of 20 % was made in the quantity of refuse sacks resulting in additional production of the product concerned in the range from 88 000 to 94 000 tonnes. (146) The resulting total production quantity, based on the considerations presented in recitals 135 to 145, is in the range from 1 311 000 to 1 398 000 tonnes of product under investigation. This estimate however contains all refuse bags and it should be recalled that some refuse sacks can be more than 100 microns in thickness and thus outside the product definition. Therefore this range represents rather an overestimate of the production. (147) To arrive at the Community production, the production of companies excluded from the Community industry representing 119 000 tonnes of production should be subtracted from the above figures. This results in a Community production in the range from 1 193 000 to 1 279 000 tonnes of production of the product under investigation. The estimate of the Community production at initiation of the proceeding of 1 240 000 tonnes falls within the range of this calculation and the 25 % threshold concerning the support to the case is fulfilled to the upper limit of the range. (148) The above analysis clearly shows that the information referred to by certain parties mentioned above in recital 134 is not such as to undermine the estimate of the Community production of the product under investigation prepared by the Commission which is referred to in recital 150. (149) On the basis of the above, the arguments concerning the lack of support of the case made by these parties had to be rejected. 2. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY (150) At initiation stage, the accumulated production of the 29 complaining Community producers represented 331 500 tonnes, i.e. 26,7 % in relation to the total Community production of 1 240 000 tonnes measured at the stage of initiation. The accumulated production of Community producers opposing the proceeding amounted to less than half of the aforementioned amount of support. (151) In addition, it is noted that another 21 companies with a total production of 302 000 tonnes supported the complaint at initiation stage. Thus, in total the complaint was supported by Community producers representing more than 50 % in relation to the total Community production of 1 240 000 tonnes. (152) During the investigation five of the complaining Community producers failed to cooperate with the investigation. At the same time seven other producers supporting the proceeding, cooperated with the investigation. (153) Another three cooperating companies were excluded from the definition of the Community industry and their production was thus not included in the production of the Community industry as one company was importing significant quantities from its related exporter in China and two other companies imported significant quantities in relation to their production in the Community from the countries concerned. A fourth company, which opposed the proceeding and which did not cooperate with the investigation as a Community producer, was also excluded from the definition of the Community industry as it had a related exporting producer in one of the countries concerned and it imported significant volumes of the product concerned into the Community in relation to its production in the Community. (154) Certain parties claimed that the company opposing the proceeding, British Polyethylene Industries plc (BPI), had been excluded from the definition of the Community industry and thereby from the total Community production, whereas another company supporting the proceeding, Cedo Ltd, had been included, even though both companies had a similar situation having production both in the Community and in the countries concerned. To this end it has to be noted that both companies were treated on an equal basis and both companies were excluded based on the reasons set out in recital 153. (155) Certain parties argued that two of sampled Community producers should be excluded from the definition of the Community industry as they imported considerable quantities of the product concerned originating in the PRC and Thailand. In this respect, it should be firstly noted that, whereas it is indeed a long-standing practice that importing Community producers should be excluded from the Community industry if they are either shielded from dumping or benefiting from it, they are not excluded if it is found that the Community producers were forced to have a temporary and very limited recourse to imports, because of the depressed price situation in the Community market. In this case, the total imports of these two companies during the IP represented 1 % and 0,1 % of their respective total production. Given the small quantities at stake, the two Community producers can be considered part of the definition of the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation. On this basis, the argument was rejected. (156) The 24 complaining Community producers and the seven other producers having cooperated with the investigation are therefore deemed to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation. Overall these companies represent approximately 358 000 tonnes or 31 % of the Community production measured during the investigation. (157) It is noted that another nine companies, representing 57 000 tonnes of production expressed their support to the investigation, however, these companies did not manage to cooperate fully with the investigation and were thus not included in the definition of the Community industry. 3. COMMUNITY CONSUMPTION (158) The apparent Community consumption was established on the basis of data reported in the complaint lodged by the complainant. The complainant's market intelligence in various markets and data derived from market information provided by two commercial agencies was taken as basis. The information gathered concerning the market in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain was then used to extrapolate the community consumption in the remaining Member States. (159) Based on the above analysis, the Community consumption increased throughout the period considered by 6 % from the beginning of the period considered, i.e. from 1 582 000 tonnes in the year 2001 to 1 674 000 tonnes in the IP. Detailed data, expressed in tonnes, is as follows: Consumption 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP 1 000 tonnes 1 582 1 618 1 653 1 670 1 674 Index 100 102 104 105 106 Source: Complaint 4. IMPORTS FROM THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED 4.1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned (160) The Commission examined whether imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the countries concerned should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation. This Article provides that the effects of imports from two or more countries simultaneously subject to anti-dumping investigations are to be assessed cumulatively only if it is determined that (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and that the volume of imports of each country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative assessment is appropriate in the light of the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like Community product. (161) As the overall dumping margin for Malaysia was found to be below 2 %, i.e. below de minimis, imports from Malaysia were excluded from the cumulative assessment. In that regard, the dumping margins established in relation to the imports originating in the PRC and in Thailand were found to be above the de minimis level of 2 % set forth in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, since during the IP imports from the PRC represented a market share of 14,4 % and imports from Thailand a market share of 4 %, the volumes of imports from the PRC and Thailand were not negligible. (162) As regards the conditions of competition, the investigation showed that the products imported from the PRC and Thailand were alike in all their essential physical characteristics. Furthermore, on that basis, plastic sacks and bags imported from the PRC and Thailand were interchangeable and were marketed in the Community during the period considered through comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions. Imports from both countries showed similar trends of prices and volumes and both showed significant levels of undercutting. Moreover, it is recalled that the imported product was found to be alike to plastic sacks and bags produced in the Community and as such competes with them under the same conditions of competition. (163) In the light of the above, it is considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from the PRC and Thailand should therefore be examined cumulatively. 5. VOLUME OF THE IMPORTS CONCERNED AND MARKET SHARE (164) The volume of dumped imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and Thailand as reported by Eurostat increased from approximately 219 000 tonnes in 2001 to 307 000 tonnes in the IP representing an increase of 40 %. The sharp increase in imports over the period concerned has absorbed 96 % of the increase in consumption that occurred in the Community market over the same period. (165) All imports of the product concerned were declared under CN code ex 3923 21 00 (sacks and bags of polymers of ethylene). Imports under CN codes ex 3923 29 10 (sacks and bags of polyvinyl chloride) and ex 3923 29 90 (sacks and bags of other plastics) were not included in the calculation, as according to the available information there was no production of sacks and bags where polyethylene does not predominate by weight, and, consequently, there are currently no imports of the product concerned under these CN codes. Cumulated imports 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP in 1 000 tonnes 219 239 288 299 307 Index 100 109 132 137 140 (166) During the period considered, the dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand increased their share of the Community market by 33 % from 13,8 % in 2001 to 18,3 % in the IP. Market share 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Cumulated 13,8 % 14,8 % 17,4 % 18,0 % 18,3 % Index 100 107 126 130 133 6. PRICES OF THE IMPORTS CONCERNED AND PRICE UNDERCUTTING (167) Price information given below was derived from Eurostat data based on the import volumes established using the methodology described above. This information showed that between 2001 and the IP, the average CIF prices of imports originating in the PRC and Thailand decreased by 14 %. Prices hit rock bottom in 2003 and increased slightly until the IP. However, they did not reach the price level of 2001 and 2002 and remained on a low level. Prices of imports in euro/kg 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Cumulated 1,42 1,25 1,09 1,16 1,22 Index 100 88 77 82 86 (168) For the determination of the price undercutting of the imports concerned, the Commission based its analysis on the information submitted in the course of the investigation by the sampled exporting producers and the sampled Community producers. This analysis compared per product type the actual CIF prices of the exporting producers at Community frontier level adjusted by any post-importation costs with the relevant weighted average sales prices to independent customers of the Community industry adjusted to ex-works level. (169) This comparison showed that during the IP, based on product types as defined in the questionnaire and on a weighted average basis, the products concerned originating in the countries concerned were sold in the Community at prices which undercut the Community industry’s prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, between 4,1 % to 37,9 % for the PRC and Thailand. 7. ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 7.1. Preliminary remarks (170) Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Community industry included an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry during the period considered. This analysis was carried out for the sampled companies as mentioned above. On this basis, the industry’s performance as measured by factors such as prices, wages, investments, profits, return on investment, cash flow and ability to raise capital has been established on the basis of information from the sampled companies. However, in order to provide a complete picture of the situation of the Community industry, for those indicators for which reliable information was available for the Community industry as a whole, this information has also been provided below. Therefore, injury factors such as market share, sales volume, employment, production capacity, inventories and production have been established for the full Community industry. 7.2. Production capacity, production, capacity utilisation (171) The Community industry’s production capacity increased during the period considered by 66 000 tonnes or by 17 %. Over the same period production only increased by 9 %. Consequently, the capacity utilisation rate of the Community industry decreased by 6 %. Production 1 000 tonnes 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Production 328 346 353 359 358 Index 100 105 107 109 109 Production capacity 399 423 444 463 465 Index 100 106 111 116 117 Capacity utilisation % 82 82 80 78 77 Index 100 99 97 94 94 Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. 7.3. Inventories (172) Six non-sampled producers could not provide consistent information on their inventories due to insufficient information supplied by their stock-management systems regarding the like product. Accordingly, data from these companies had to be excluded when carrying out the analysis of stocks for the period considered. This analysis was based on the information provided by the sampled producers and 20 non-sampled producers. Stocks 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Tonnes 24 110 26 446 26 757 25 016 28 994 Index 100 110 111 104 120 Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. (173) During the IP, inventories of finished products represented around 8 % of the Community industry’s total production volume. The level of closing stocks of the Community industry first increased by 11 % in 2003 and then marked a decrease of 7 percentage points in 2004, before rising by to 20 percentage points in the IP compared to 2001. 7.4. Sales volume, market share and growth (174) The sales volume of the Community industry increased by 10 % during the period considered. It reached a peak in 2004, but then declined slightly in the IP. The overall proportional increase was higher than the increase of the total consumption which was 6 %. Sales volume 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP tonnes 308 068 330 103 334 818 341 701 338 940 Index 100 107 109 111 110 Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. (175) The market share of the Community industry has increased by 4 % over the period considered. After a first increase of 5 % between 2001 and 2002, it remained unchanged until 2004 and showed a slight decrease in the IP. At the same time Community consumption increased by 6 % over the period considered. Therefore, the Community industry was able to take advantage of the growth of the market between 2001 and the IP. Market share 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP % 19,5 % 20,4 % 20,3 % 20,5 % 20,2 % Index 100 105 104 105 104 Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. 7.5. Employment, productivity and wages (176) The level of employment of the Community industry decreased over the period considered by 1 %. Over the same period, its productivity, measured as output per person employed per year, increased by 10 %. 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Number of employees 3 325 3 353 3 381 3 338 3 302 Index 100 101 102 100 99 Productivity: production per employee 99 103 104 108 108 Index 100 104 105 109 109 Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry. (177) Over the period considered the total annual cost of labour per employee increased by 7 %. After an increase of 8 % between 2001 and 2004, the average wage decreased by 1 % between 2004 and the IP. 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Total labour cost per employee in euro 32 801 34 507 34 794 35 533 35 217 Index 100 105 106 108 107 Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 7.6. Sales prices (178) The sampled Community industry producers' average net sales price decreased from 1,50 euro per kg in 2001 to 1,47 euro per kg in the IP. Prices first decreased by 4 % in 2002 and by a further 2 % in 2003. Between 2003 and 2004 they showed a slight increase of 0,7 % and increased further by 3,5 % in the IP. This rather stable price development should be seen in the light of the development of raw material prices which increased considerably, i.e. by 23 %. 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Sales prices to unrelated customers in the Community in euro/kg 1,50 1,44 1,41 1,42 1,47 Index 100 96 94 95 98 Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 7.7. Profitability (179) During the period considered the profitability of the sampled Community industry producers' sales in the Community to unrelated customers fell by 82 %. In the years 2001 to 2002 the sampled Community industry still reached a sustainable level of profitability. However, between 2002 and the IP profitability showed a continuous strong decrease, reaching only 1,1 % in the IP, while several of the sampled companies recorded losses. 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Profitability 6,3 % 6,9 % 4,0 % 2,5 % 1,1 % Index 100 110 63 40 17 Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 7.8. Investments and return on investments (180) The Community industry’s annual investment in the production of the like product declined by 30 % during the period considered from approximately EUR 16 million to less than EUR 12 million. 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Investments (1 000 euro) 16 474 20 956 11 363 16 830 11 507 Index 100 127 69 102 70 Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. (181) The sampled Community industry producers' return on investment, which expresses their pre-tax result as a percentage of the average opening and closing net book value of assets employed in the production of the like product, decreased dramatically as a result of decreasing profitability. Whereas the return on investment remained stable between 2001 and 2002, it thereafter declined sharply to 6 % in the IP representing an overall decrease of 84 % between 2001 and the IP. 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Return on investment % 37 % 37 % 20 % 12 % 6 % Index 100 100 54 32 16 Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 7.9. Cash flow (182) The sampled Community industry producers recorded a net cash inflow from operating activities during the period considered. However, when expressed as a percentage of turnover, the net cash inflow showed a marked decline in percentage terms, especially during the IP, in line with the decrease in profitability. 2001 2002 2003 2004 IP Cash flow (in 1 000 euro) 14 965 23 307 17 652 17 598 4 706 Index 100 156 118 118 31 Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry. 7.10. Ability to raise capital (183) Much of the Community industry is made up of small or medium sized enterprises. In consequence, the Community industry’s ability to raise capital was reduced to some extent during the period considered, especially in the latter part thereof, when profitability was extremely low. 7.11. Recovery from past dumping or subsidisation (184) The Community industry was not in a situation where it had to recover from past effects of injurious dumping or subsidisation. 7.12. Magnitude of dumping margin (185) As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the PRC and Thailand, this impact is substantial. 8. CONCLUSION ON INJURY (186) The examination of the above mentioned factors shows that between 2001 and the IP, the dumped imports increased sharply in terms of volume and market share. In fact, their volume increased by 40 % during the period considered and they achieved a market share of 18,3 % in the IP. It is to be noted that in the IP they accounted for approximately 57 % of total imports of the product concerned into the Community. Moreover, in the IP, the sales prices of the Community industry were substantially undercut (from 4,1 % to 37,9 %) by those of the imports of the product concerned. As a consequence, the Community industry's prices were depressed and reached close to break even level. (187) A deterioration of the Community industry situation was found during the period considered. The Community industry suffered a dramatic decline of 5,2 percentage points in profitability to reach close to break even level in the IP. Its return on investment decreased at the same time by 31 percentage points and there was a significant decrease of 69 % in its cashflow. Moreover its capacity utilisation decreased by 5 %, its sales prices decreased by 2 %, employment decreased by 1 %, closing stocks increased by 20 %, its investment decreased by 30 % and its ability to raise capital gradually deteriorated. (188) Production capacity of the Community industry increased to a certain extent during the period concerned. However, this has to be considered in the context of the total Community production which was hit by the closure of a number of companies having a production capacity of more than 140 000 tonnes. The Community industry increased its capacity by acquiring production assets from the companies subject to these shutdowns. (189) In the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Community industry is in a difficult economic and financial situation and has suffered material injury, within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation. F. CAUSATION 1. INTRODUCTION (190) In accordance with Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the dumped imports originating in Thailand and the PRC have caused injury to the Community industry to a degree that may be considered as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, were also examined to ensure that the possible injury caused by these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. 2. EFFECT OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS (191) Between 2001 and the IP, dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand increased by 40 % in volume. At the same time the market share of these imports increased from 13,8 % in 2001 to 18,3 % in the IP. The import prices from these countries decreased substantially during the period considered and undercut the Community industry’s prices in the IP between 4,1 % to 37,9 %. (192) This undercutting is resulting, on an average basis, from pricing that does not cover all costs in the commercialization chain. (193) The substantial increase in volume of the imports at very low and dumped prices and their gain in market share over the period considered coincided with the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry during the same period, in particular in terms profitability, sales prices, closing stocks, investment, capacity utilisation, cash flow, ability to raise capital and return on investment. (194) It is therefore concluded that the pressure exerted by the imports concerned, played a determining role in the injurious situation of the Community industry. 3. EFFECT OF OTHER FACTORS 3.1. Performance of other Community producers (195) As regards the sales volumes of the other Community producers, they decreased by 7,1 % in terms of volume between 2001 and the IP and decreased by 7,8 % in terms of market share during the same period. No indication was found that the prices of other Community producers were lower than those of the cooperating Community industry, or that their overall situation would be different. Therefore, it is concluded that the products produced and sold by the other Community producers did not contribute to the injury suffered by the Community industry. 3.2. Imports from other third countries (196) According to information derived from Eurostat, the volume of imports originating in other third countries (e.g. Malaysia, Turkey, India and Indonesia) increased by 22 % over the period considered and reached a level of approximately 231 000 tonnes in the IP. This corresponds to a market share of 13,8 %. Over the same period, the prices of these imports decreased by 11 % (from 1,66 EUR/kg in 2001 to 1,48 EUR/kg in the IP). However, it is to be noted that the average price of these imports was above that of the imports originating in the PRC and Thailand during the IP and even slightly higher than that of the Community Industry. It is therefore concluded that imports from other third countries have not materially contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry. 3.3. Raw material prices (197) It was alleged by some parties that the price of polyethylene has been historically lower in Asia than its price in the EU. However, the evolution of the polyethylene prices reveals that the raw material prices in Asia fluctuated both below and above the corresponding European prices during the period considered. Based on the figures presented by these parties concerning the situation in the PRC, the average price differential in raw materials in the PRC compared to the EU decreased from 20,3 % to 12,3 % between 2001 and 2004 whilst at the same time the average price differential in the final product increased from 0,7 % to 14,8 %. As the development of prices of the raw material should have led to a decrease in the price differential of the final product rather than an increase in this price differential, the investigation showed that there was no logical correlation between the development of the raw material price and the price of the final product exported to the Community. On the contrary, the Community industry was in relatively good shape in 2001 although the price differential was at its highest, and showed an injurious situation in 2004 and the IP when the price differential was much smaller. Therefore, it must be concluded that the differential in the raw material prices cannot be considered to have contributed to the material injury of the Community industry in a significant way. (198) Some parties further alleged that the injury suffered by the Community industry was not caused by the dumped imports but by the increase in the polyethylene prices during the period considered in the Community. To this end it has to be noted that the polyethylene prices have on an average basis indeed increased during the period considered. However, the Community industry could not increase their respective sales prices accordingly. This inflexibility in prices has been caused by the simultaneous surge of dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand, at prices significantly undercutting those of the Community industry and, on an average basis, not even covering the cost of production in the PRC and Thailand. Under these circumstances it has to be concluded that the Community industry has been exposed to heavy price pressure by these dumped imports and consequently has had no possibility to compensate for the increase in the raw material prices by increasing their sales prices respectively. (199) Finally, it is recalled that in the context of the investigation of a causal link, it has to be examined whether the dumped imports (in terms of prices and volumes) have caused material injury to the Community industry or whether such material injury was due to other factors. In this respect, with regard to prices, Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation refers to a demonstration that the price level of the dumped imports causes injury. It therefore merely refers to a difference between price levels of dumped imports and those of the Community industry. Thus, there is no requirement to analyse the factors affecting the level of the import prices, such as for example the level of labour costs, the level of prices of raw materials or the level of the SG&A costs. (200) The above is also confirmed by the wording of Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, which refers to known factors other than dumped imports. Indeed, the list of the other known factors in this Article does not make reference to any factor affecting the price level of the dumped imports. In sum, if the exports are dumped, and even if they benefited from a favourable development in prices of raw materials, it is difficult to see how the favourable development of such input prices could be another factor causing injury. (201) Thus, the analysis of the factors affecting the level of the prices of the dumped imports, be it differences in prices in raw materials or something else, cannot be conclusive and such analysis would go beyond the requirements of the basic Regulation. Equally on this basis, the arguments concerning the raw material prices are rejected. 4. CONCLUSION ON CAUSATION (202) The injurious situation of the Community industry coincided with a sharp increase in imports from the PRC and Thailand and a substantial price undercutting by these imports. (203) As to the imports from other third countries, in view of their lower market share during the IP than that of the imports concerned, and especially in view of the higher average price than that of the imports concerned during the IP and, even more important, higher than that of the Community industry, it is concluded that the effect of these other factors could not have materially contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry. Furthermore, the effect of the differential in raw material prices in the Community and the countries concerned on the Community industry's negative developments in terms of profitability, performance and decrease in market share was negligible and in fact should have contributed positively to the situation of the Community industry. (204) No other factors, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, were raised by interested parties or identified during the course of the investigation. (205) Given the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all the known factors on the situation of the Community Industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports, the investigation confirmed that these other factors as such do not reverse the fact that the injury assessed must be attributed to the dumped imports. (206) It is therefore concluded that the dumped imports originating in the PRC and Thailand have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation. G. COMMUNITY INTEREST (207) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed for concluding that it is not in the Community interest to adopt measures in this particular case. The impact of possible measures on all parties involved in this proceeding and also the consequences of not taking measures were considered. 1. INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY (208) The imposition of measures is expected to prevent further distortions and restore fair competition on the market. The Community industry is a competitive and viable industry which is evidenced by its situation in 2001 where it was in a relatively good shape despite sharp worldwide competition. Thus, the imposition of measures should allow it to increase market share and its sales prices, and thereby reach reasonable profit levels necessary to improve the industry’s financial situation. This will also allow them to continue investments in their production facilities, thus guaranteeing the Community industry's survival. (209) On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, it is likely that the deterioration of the already poor situation of the Community industry would continue. It would not be able to carry out the necessary investments in order to compete effectively with the dumped imports from the third countries concerned. This will force some companies to cease production and lay off their employees in the near future. The 3 300 direct jobs in the cooperating Community industry would be put at stake. The total Community production of sacks and bags involves approximately 12 000 jobs which are mainly in small and medium sized companies. With the closure of the Community production the Community would become more dependent on suppliers outside the Community. (210) Accordingly, it is concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would allow the Community industry to recover from the effects of injurious dumping suffered and that it therefore is in the interest of the Community industry. 2. INTEREST OF UNRELATED IMPORTERS/TRADERS AND RETAILERS (211) The Commission sent questionnaires to four sampled importers/traders representing 9 % of total sales of imports from the countries concerned. However, only two importers/traders, representing 3 % of total imports from the countries concerned, replied to the questionnaire. The cooperating unrelated importers submitted that, were measures imposed, the sales price of the product concerned would rise and that the consumers would have to pay more for the product concerned and that the effect of the duty would thus be transferred to the consumers. Therefore, there would be a limited negative impact on the unrelated importers in this regard. (212) The product concerned is, to a large extent, distributed by retail businesses. Certain types of the product, such as grocery bags and carrier bags are distributed for free to individual customers in some countries in the Community whereas certain other types, such as freezer bags, nappy bags and bin liners, are sold to the customers. It is to be noted that at present consumers are not charged for single trip carrier bags in certain Member States such as in the United Kingdom. (213) The investigation showed that the claims concerning the financial impact of an anti-dumping duty on different operators, especially the retail sector, were considerably exaggerated. Some retailers put forward that a duty of 10 % would generate a supplemental cost of EUR 220 million per annum for the retail sector alone. Based on the investigation, as the total customs value of the imports concerned is around EUR 375 million, the maximum effect of an average duty of 10 % would be EUR 38 million on an annual basis across the Community. Moreover, based on the two questionnaire responses received from retailers, the average purchases of the product concerned amounted to less than 0,1 % of the turnover of these retailers. Therefore, the impact of an anti-dumping duty of the above mentioned level would contribute only to a marginal increase in their cost. In addition, some of this supplemental cost would be spread across various levels of the supply chain. The argument of these retailers was therefore rejected. (214) The same retailers alleged also that there is not only no supply of certain types of the product concerned by the EC industry, but that the EC industry would also not have the capacity to satisfy Community demand as a whole. In this regard it should firstly be noted with regard to the supply of sacks and bags that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would not stop the supply of the product from the countries concerned but would only restore a level playing field in the market. The imports of sacks and bags will continue to satisfy some of the supply in the Community market. Moreover, the Community industry has existing production capacity to satisfy any increase in demand. In any event, further supply of all types of plastic sacks and bags remains also possible from third countries not subject to measures. These arguments were therefore rejected. (215) An association representing retailers acquiring funding for charity purposes alleged that any duty would disproportionately harm their fundraising activities as they purchased bags which were distributed to their clients for free. They also said that bags used for collection of recycled items for charity purposes would also be hit should an anti-dumping duty be imposed. In this regard it is to be noted that this type of fundraising, even if for charity purposes, is made on a commercial basis. It is therefore subject to the same risks as any other commercial activity and should be assessed on the same basis. The effect of a duty concerning these retailers would not be significantly different from that of any other retailers. Therefore this argument was rejected. 3. INTEREST OF CONSUMERS (216) No consumer associations made themselves known within the time-limit set in the notice of initiation. (217) Some importers argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would lead to a rise in the prices charged to the final customer as the level of sales prices would be adjusted in accordance with the duties. (218) However, as stated above, some retailers distribute parts of the product for free to their clients. Unless these retailers change their well-established policy, the consumers will not feel the effect of the anti-dumping measure imposed in these cases. (219) An average duty of 10 % would increase the price of each imported bag on an average basis by 0,086 cents and the price of each bag sold in the Community by 0,016 cents (assuming a hypothetical weight of 7g per bag). This increment is negligible even if it would be borne only by consumers. In fact, the effect of the duty borne by the consumers will be even lower as this cost will be spread across various levels of the supply chain. 4. COMPETITION AND TRADE DISTORTING EFFECTS (220) With respect to the effects of possible measures on competition in the Community, the exporting producers concerned will be able to continue to sell certain plastic bags and sacks, as they have a strong market position. This taken with the large number of producers in the Community and imports from other third countries will ensure that users and retailers will continue to have a wide choice of different suppliers of the like product at reasonable prices. (221) Thus, there will be an important number of actors in the market, which will be able to satisfy the demand. On the basis of the above, it is therefore concluded that competition will most likely remain strong after the imposition of anti-dumping measures. 5. CONCLUSION ON COMMUNITY INTEREST (222) The imposition of measures on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand would clearly be in the interest of the Community industry. It will allow the Community industry to grow and recover from the injury caused by the dumped imports. If, however, measures are not imposed, it is likely that the Community production will continue to decline and more operators will go out of business. Furthermore, the importers and the retailers will not be substantially affected since fairly priced sacks and bags will still be available in the market, including imports from other third countries. (223) In view of the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons not to impose anti-dumping duties against imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand. H. DEFINITIVE MEASURES (224) In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, resulting injury and Community interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed on imports originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand in order to prevent further injury being caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports. (225) The measures should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by these imports without exceeding the dumping margin found. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Community industry to cover its costs of production and to obtain an overall profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved by an industry of this type in the sector under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on the sales of the like product in the Community. The pre-tax profit margin used for this calculation was 6 % of turnover of the sales of the like product representing a healthy profit level attributable to the industry under normal conditions of competition, which was attained by the industry before the surge of the dumped imports. (226) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the countries concerned and produced by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. (227) As to one Chinese exporting producer denied MET and IT, this company should not receive an individual anti-dumping duty rate, despite having been calculated a dumping margin, as explained in recital 131. Imports of products produced by this company, a cooperating exporting producer, should therefore be subject to the average duty rate determined for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the samples, as described in recital 228. (228) The duty rates for cooperating exporters not selected to be part of the samples are, for each country, the weighted average of the dumping margins found for the sampled companies, as per recital 54. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically mentioned with its name and address in the operative part or in the annexes of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. (229) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic sales and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duties. Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, a new exporter review to determine individual dumping margins could not be initiated in this proceeding, as sampling was applied to the exporting producers of the PRC, Malaysia and Thailand. However, in order to ensure equal treatment between any new exporting producer and the cooperating companies not included in the samples, it is considered that a provision should be made to impose the duty applicable to the latter companies to any new exporting producers which can demonstrate that they would be entitled to a review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. (230) Any claim requesting the addition of a new exporting producer in the PRC or Thailand to the lists set out in Annexes I or II of the Regulation should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular the evidence that the company concerned fulfils the three criteria set out in Article 2 of the Regulation. If appropriate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the lists of companies in Annexes I or II benefiting from the average duty of the sample. (231) In view of the findings above, the anti-dumping duty rates should be as follows: Country Exporting producer Dumping margin Injury margin AD duty rate The PRC Cedo (Shanghai) Ltd and Cedo (Shanghai) Household Wrappings Co. Ltd, Shanghai 7,4 % 39,0 % 7,4 % Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd, Longhai 5,1 % 74,6 % 5,1 % Sunway Kordis Shanghai and Shanghai Sunway Polysell, Shanghai 4,8 % 37,4 % 4,8 % Suzhou Guoxin Group Co., Ltd, Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Yihe Import & Export Co., Ltd, Taicang Dongyuan Plastic Co., Ltd and Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd, Taicang 7,8 % 61,3 % 7,8 % Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi 12,8 % 57,8 % 12,8 % Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co Ltd., Zhongshan 5,7 % 34,3 % 5,7 % Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co, Huizhou 4,8 % 30,8 % 4,8 % Cooperating exporting producers not in the sample 8,4 % 49,3 % 8,4 % All other companies 28,8 % 34,3 % 28,8 % Thailand King Pac Industrial Co Ltd, Chonburi and Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd, Bangkok 14,3 % 37,4 % 14,3 % Multibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi 5,1 % 10,6 % 5,1 % Naraipak Co., Ltd and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok 10,4 % 29,7 % 10,4 % Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok 6,8 % 23,9 % 6,8 % Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakhonpathom 5,8 % 53,5 % 5,8 % Cooperating exporting producers not in the sample 7,9 % 27,6 % 7,9 % All other companies 14,3 % 37,4 % 14,3 % HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. Definitive anti-dumping duties are hereby imposed on imports of plastic sacks and bags, containing at least 20 % by weight of polyethylene and of a thickness not exceeding 100 micrometers; originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand; and falling within CN codes ex 3923 21 00, ex 3923 29 10 and ex 3923 29 90 (TARIC codes 3923210020, 3923291020 and 3923299020). 2. The rate of the definitive duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for products manufactured by the companies listed below shall be as follows: Country Company AD duty rate (%) TARIC Additional code The People’s Republic of China Cedo (Shanghai) Ltd and Cedo (Shanghai) Household Wrappings Co. Ltd, Shanghai 7,4 A757 Jinguan (Longhai) Plastics Packing Co., Ltd, Longhai 5,1 A758 Sunway Kordis (Shanghai) Ltd and Shanghai Sunway Polysell Ltd, Shanghai 4,8 A760 Suzhou Guoxin Group Co., Ltd, Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Yihe Import & Export Co., Ltd, Taicang Dongyuan Plastic Co., Ltd and Suzhou Guoxin Group Taicang Giant Packaging Co., Ltd, Taicang 7,8 A761 Wuxi Jiayihe Packaging Co., Ltd and Wuxi Bestpac Packaging Co., Ltd, Wuxi 12,8 A763 Zhong Shan Qi Yu Plastic Products Co Ltd, Zhongshan 5,7 A764 Huizhou Jun Yang Plastics Co,. Ltd, Huizhou 4,8 A765 Companies listed in Annex I 8,4 A766 All other companies 28,8 A999 Thailand King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd, Chonburi and Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd, Bangkok 14,3 A767 Multibax Public Co., Ltd, Chonburi 5,1 A768 Naraipak Co Ltd and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd, Bangkok 10,4 A769 Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok 6,8 A770 Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd, Nakonpathom 5,8 A771 Companies listed in Annex II 7,9 A772 All other companies 14,3 A999 3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. Article 2 Where any new exporting producer in the PRC or Thailand provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that - it did not export to the Community the products described in Article 1(1) during the investigation period (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005), - it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the PRC or Thailand which are subject to the anti-dumping measures imposed by this Regulation, and - it has actually exported to the Community the products concerned after the investigation period on which the measures are based, or it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community, then the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend Article 1(3) by adding that new exporting producer to the lists in Annexes I or II. Article 3 The proceeding concerning imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia is hereby terminated. Article 4 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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, 25 September 2006.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Directive 2004/34/EC of 23 March 2004 amending, for the purposes of adapting to technical progress, Annexes I and II to Directive 96/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile names (Text with EEA relevance) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Directive 96/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on textile names(1), and in particular Article 16(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) Directive 96/74/EC lays down rules governing the labelling or marking of products as regards their textile fibre content, in order to ensure that consumer interests are thereby protected. Textile products may be placed on the market within the Community only if they comply with the provisions of that Directive. (2) In view of recent findings by a technical working group, it is necessary, for the purposes of adapting Directive 96/74/EC to technical progress, to add the fibre polylactide to the list of fibres set out in Annexes I and II to that Directive. (3) Directive 96/74/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. (4) The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Directives relating to Textile Names and Labelling, HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 Directive 96/74/EC is amended as follows: 1. In Annex I the following row 33a is inserted: TABLE " 2. In Annex II the following entry 33a is inserted: TABLE " Article 2 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 March 2005 at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. Article 3 This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 4 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 23 March 2004.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1631/96 of 13 August 1996 opening an invitation to tender for the refund on export of wholly milled medium grain and long grain A rice to certain third countries THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 of 21 June 1976 on the common organization of the market in rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 (2), and in particular Article 14 thereof, Whereas examination of the balance sheet shows that exportable amounts of rice are currently held by producers; whereas this situation could affect the normal development of producer prices during the 1996/97 marketing year; Whereas, in order to remedy this situation, it is appropriate to make use of export refunds to zones which may be supplied by the Community; whereas the special situation of the rice market makes it necessary to limit the refunds, and therefore to apply Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 enabling the refund amount to be fixed by tendering procedure; Whereas it should be stated that the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 of 6 March 1975 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of tendering for export refunds on rice (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/95 (4), apply to this invitation to tender; Whereas, in order to avoid disturbances on the markets of the producing countries, the invitation to tender should be limited to certain zones specified in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2145/92 (5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3304/94 (6); Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. An invitation to tender is hereby opened, for the refund on export of wholly milled medium grain and long grain A rice referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76, for Zones II (a), (b), (d) and III as specified in Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2145/92. 2. The invitation to tender shall be open until 26 June 1997. During that period weekly invitations to tender shall be issued and the date for submission of tenders shall be determined in the notice of invitation to tender. 3. The invitation to tender shall take place in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 and with the following provisions. Article 2 A tender shall be valid only if it covers a quantity for export of at least 50 tonnes but not more than 5 000 tonnes. Article 3 The security referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 shall be ECU 20 per tonne. Article 4 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 (7), export licences issued within this invitation to tender shall, for the purposes of determining their period of validity, be considered as having been issued on the day the tender was submitted. 2. The licences shall be valid from their date of issue, within the meaning of paragraph 1, until the end of the third month following. Article 5 Tenders submitted must reach the Commission through the Member States not later than one and a half hours after expiry of the time limit for weekly submission of tenders as laid down in the notice of invitation to tender. They must be transmitted in accordance with the table given in the Annex. If no tenders are submitted, the Member States shall inform the Commission accordingly within the same time limit as that given in the above subparagraph. Article 6 The time set for submitting tenders shall be Belgian time. Article 7 1. On the basis of tenders submitted, the Commission shall decide in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76: - either to fix a maximum export refund, taking account of the criteria laid down in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76, - or not to take any action on the tenders. 2. Where a maximum export refund is fixed, an award shall be made to the tenderer or tenderers whose tenders are at or below the maximum export refund level. Article 8 The time limit for submission of tenders for the first partial invitation to tender shall be 10 a.m. on 5 September 1996. The final date for submission of tenders is hereby fixed at 26 June 1997. Article 9 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 13 August 1996.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Agreement on social policy, annexed to the Protocol (No 14) on social policy, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, (1) Whereas on the basis of the Protocol on social policy, the Member States, with the exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Member States`), wishing to pursue the course mapped out by the 1989 Social Charter have concluded an Agreement on social policy amongst themselves; (2) Whereas management and labour may, in accordance with Article 4 (2) of the Agreement on social policy, request jointly that agreements at Community level be implemented by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission; (3) Whereas paragraph 16 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers on equal treatment for men and women provides, inter alia, that 'measures should also be developed enabling men and women to reconcile their occupational and family obligations`; (4) Whereas the Council, despite the existence of a broad consensus, has not been able to act on the proposal for a Directive on parental leave for family reasons (1), as amended (2) on 15 November 1984; (5) Whereas the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Agreement on social policy, consulted management and labour on the possible direction of Community action with regard to reconciling working and family life; (6) Whereas the Commission, considering after such consultation that Community action was desirable, once again consulted management and labour on the substance of the envisaged proposal in accordance with Article 3 (3) of the said Agreement; (7) Whereas the general cross-industry organizations (Unice, CEEP and the ETUC) informed the Commission in their joint letter of 5 July 1995 of their desire to initiate the procedure provided for by Article 4 of the said Agreement; (8) Whereas the said cross-industry organizations concluded, on 14 December 1995, a framework agreement on parental leave; whereas they have forwarded to the Commission their joint request to implement this framework agreement by a Council Decision on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Article 4 (2) of the said Agreement; (9) Whereas the Council, in its Resolution of 6 December 1994 on certain aspects for a European Union social policy; a contribution to economic and social convergence in the Union (3), asked the two sides of industry to make use of the possibilities for concluding agreements, since they are as a rule closer to social reality and to social problems; whereas in Madrid, the members of the European Council from those States which have signed the Agreement on social policy welcomed the conclusion of this framework agreement; (10) Whereas the signatory parties wanted to conclude a framework agreement setting out minimum requirements on parental leave and time off from work on grounds of force majeure and referring back to the Member States and/or management and labour for the definition of the conditions under which parental leave would be implemented, in order to take account of the situation, including the situation with regard to family policy, existing in each Member State, particularly as regards the conditions for granting parental leave and exercise of the right to parental leave; (11) Whereas the proper instrument for implementing this framework agreement is a Directive within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty; whereas it is therefore binding on the Member States as to the result to be achieved, but leaves them the choice of form and methods; (12) Whereas, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 3b of the Treaty, the objectives of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved by the Community; whereas this Directive is confined to the minimum required to achieve these objectives and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose; (13) Whereas the Commission has drafted its proposal for a Directive, taking into account the representative status of the signatory parties, their mandate and the legality of the clauses of the framework agreement and compliance with the relevant provisions concerning small and medium-sized undertakings; (14) Whereas the Commission, in accordance with its Communication of 14 December 1993 concerning the implementation of the Protocol on social policy, informed the European Parliament by sending it the text of the framework agreement, accompanied by its proposal for a Directive and the explanatory memorandum; (15) Whereas the Commission also informed the Economic and Social Committee by sending it the text of the framework agreement, accompanied by its proposal for a Directive and the explanatory memorandum; (16) Whereas clause 4 point 2 of the framework agreement states that the implementation of the provisions of this agreement does not constitute valid grounds for reducing the general level of protection afforded to workers in the field of this agreement. This does not prejudice the right of Member States and/or management and labour to develop different legislative, regulatory or contractual provisions, in the light of changing circumstances (including the introduction of non-transferability), as long as the minimum requirements provided for in the present agreement are complied with; (17) Whereas the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers recognizes the importance of the fight against all forms of discrimination, especially based on sex, colour, race, opinions and creeds; (18) Whereas Article F (2) of the Treaty on European Union provides that 'the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law`; (19) Whereas the Member States can entrust management and labour, at their joint request, with the implementation of this Directive, as long as they take all the necessary steps to ensure that they can at all times guarantee the results imposed by this Directive; (20) Whereas the implementation of the framework agreement contributes to achieving the objectives under Article 1 of the Agreement on social policy, HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 Implementation of the framework agreement The purpose of this Directive is to put into effect the annexed framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995 between the general cross-industry organizations (Unice, CEEP and the ETUC). Article 2 Final provisions 1. The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 3 June 1998 at the latest or shall ensure by that date at the latest that management and labour have introduced the necessary measures by agreement, the Member States being required to take any necessary measure enabling them at any time to be in a position to guarantee the results imposed by this Directive. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. 2. The Member States may have a maximum additional period of one year, if this is necessary to take account of special difficulties or implementation by a collective agreement. They must forthwith inform the Commission of such circumstances. 3. When Member States adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States. Article 3 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 3 June 1996.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 410/2006 of 9 March 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 26(3) thereof, Whereas: (1) Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products (2), provides that exports from the Community of products for which an export refund is requested shall be subject to the presentation of an export licence. (2) However, the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 further lays down that an export licence must also be presented for the products referred to in category II of Annex I thereto, where no refund is applied for, except in the cases referred to in the first and fourth indents of Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (3). (3) Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 provides that a licence is not to be required and may not be produced for the purposes of exports with export refunds relating inter alia to small quantities not exceeding those set out in Annex III to that Regulation. (4) It is appropriate, where exports without refunds of skimmed-milk powder, as referred to in category II of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 174/1999, relating to those small quantities, to exempt exporters from the obligation of an export licence. (5) Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly. (6) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 In Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, at the end of product sector D, the following text is added: Export licence without refund (Article 1(1) second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999) ‘0402 10 150 kg’ Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following 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, 9 March 2006.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 10 June 1992 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for the importation of bovine semen from Hungary (92/386/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in, and imports of, deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species(1) , as last amended by Directive 90/425/EEC(2) , and in particular Articles 10 and 11 thereof, Whereas Hungary appears in the list, established by Commission Decision 90/14/EEC(3) , of third countries from which Member States authorize importation of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species; Whereas it appears that the animal health situation in Hungary is good and controlled by well-structured and organized veterinary services as regards diseases transmissible through semen; Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have confirmed that Hungary has for at least 12 months been free from rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia and bluetongue and that no vaccinations have been carried out against any of those diseases during that time; Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have undertaken to notify the Commission of the European Communities and the Member States by telex or telefax, within 24 hours, of the confirmation of the occurrence of any of the abovementioned diseases or of any change in vaccination policy concerning any of them or, within an appropriate period, of any proposed change in the Hungarian import rules concerning domestic animals or the semen or embryos thereof; Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have provided animal health guarantees in respect of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis which are equivalent to those applicable within the Community; Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have undertaken to supervise officially the issue of certificates arising from this Decision and to ensure that all relevant certificates, derogations and laboratory findings on which certification may have been based remain on official file for at least 12 months following the dispatch of the semen to which they refer; Whereas the competent veterinary authorities of Hungary have undertaken to approve officially semen collection centres for the export of bovine semen to the European Economic Community as required by Article 9 of Directive 88/407/EEC; Whereas animal health conditions and veterinary certification must be adapted according to the animal health situation of the third country concerned; Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 1. A Member State which does not practice vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease shall authorize the entry onto its territory of semen collected from bulls in an approved centre in which there are no bulls which have been vaccinated against that disease or from bulls in an approved centre in which all the bulls have been vaccinated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Annex C to Directive 88/407/EEC but, in the latter case, may require that up to 10 % of each collection of such semen, with a minimum of five straws, be submitted, with negative result, to a virus isolation test for foot-and-mouth disease virus in a laboratory nominated by the importing Member State. 2. Member States shall authorize the importation from Hungary of bovine semen which conforms to the conditions set out in the certificate in Annex I A and, where relevant, the certificate in Annex I B to this Decision. Article 2 This Decision shall come into effect 14 days after its notification to the Member States. Article 3 This Decision shall be reviewed in the light of any relevant amendment to Council Directive 88/407/EEC. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 10 June 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 729/91 of 21 March 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1521/76 on imports of olive oil originating in Morocco THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113, thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas Article 17 of, and Annex B to, the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (1) stipulate that, if the country in question levies a special export charge on imports into the Community of olive oil falling within CN codes 1509 10 10, 1509 10 90 and 1510 00 10, the levy applicable to such oil is to be reduced by a fixed amount of ECU 0,60 per 100 kilograms and by an amount equal to the special charge, but not exceeding ECU 12,09 per 100 kilograms in the case of reduction provided for in the aforementioned Article and ECU 12,09 per 100 kilograms in the case of the additional amount provided for in the aforementioned Annex B; Whereas the aforementioned Agreement was implemented by Regulation (EEC) No 1521/76 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 4015/88 (3); Whereas the Contracting Parties have agreed, by exchange of letters, to fix the additional amount at ECU 12,09 per 100 kilograms for the period from 1 November 1987 to 31 December 1991; Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1521/76 should accordingly be amended, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Article 1 (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1521/76 shall be replaced by the following: '(b) an amount equal to the special charge levied by Morocco on exports of the said oil but not exceeding ECU 12,09 per 100 kilograms, this amount being increased for the period from 1 November 1987 to 31 December 1991 by ECU 12,09 per 100 kilograms'. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 21 March 1991.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION DECISION of 19 January 1988 amending Decision 87/492/EEC recognizing certain parts of the territory of the Netherlands as being officially swine fever free (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (88/153/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Directive 80/1095/EEC of 11 November 1980 laying down conditions designed to render and keep the territory of the Community free from classical swine fever (1), as last amended by Directive 87/487/EEC (2), and in particular Article 7 (2) thereof, Having regard to Commission Decision 82/194/EEC of 12 March 1982 approving the plan for accelerated eradication of classical swine fever presented by the Netherlands (3), Whereas, following a favourable development in the disease situation, the Commission adopted Decision 87/492/EEC (4), recognizing certain parts of the territory of the Netherlands as officially swine fever free; Whereas certain other regions now also fulfil the conditions as laid down in Article 7 of Directive 80/1095/EEC and, consequently, may also be recognized as officially swine fever free; Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The following parts of the teritory of the Netherlands are added to the Annex To Decision 87/492/EEC: - all the parts of the provinces Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht, Gelderland en Overijssel south of a line connecting Katwijk, Leiden, Leimuiden, Hilversum, Huizen, Harderwijk, Apeldoorn, Deventer, Holten, Almelo and the German border, - the provinces of Zeeland and Noord-Brabant. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Done at Brussels, 19 January 1988.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2194/2002 of 10 December 2002 determining the world market price for unginned cotton THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001(1), Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof, Whereas: (1) In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, a world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined periodically from the price for ginned cotton recorded on the world market and by reference to the historical relationship between the price recorded for ginned cotton and that calculated for unginned cotton. That historical relationship has been established in Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1486/2002(4). Where the world market price cannot be determined in this way, it is to be based on the most recent price determined. (2) In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined in respect of a product of specific characteristics and by reference to the most favourable offers and quotations on the world market among those considered representative of the real market trend. To that end, an average is to be calculated of offers and quotations recorded on one or more European exchanges for a product delivered cif to a port in the Community and coming from the various supplier countries considered the most representative in terms of international trade. However, there is provision for adjusting the criteria for determining the world market price for ginned cotton to reflect differences justified by the quality of the product delivered and the offers and quotations concerned. Those adjustments are specified in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001. (3) The application of the above criteria gives the world market price for unginned cotton determined hereinafter, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling EUR 25,618/100 kg. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 December 2002. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 10 December 2002.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Decision of 4 October 2001 fixing aid for private storage of carcasses and half-carcasses of lamb in Great Britain concerning the invitations to tender issued under Regulation (EC) No 1641/2001 (notified under document number C(2001) 2780) (Only the English text is authentic) (2001/717/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 of 3 November 1998 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1669/2000(2), Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90 of 27 November 1990 laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for sheepmeat and goatmeat(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3533/93(4), and in particular Article 12(1)(f) thereof, Whereas: (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3447/90 of 28 November 1990 on special conditions for the granting of private storage aid for sheepmeat and goatmeat(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 40/96(6), supplements the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90 and lays down in particular detailed rules governing invitations to tender. (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1641/2001(7), opens two invitations to tender for the fixing of aid for private storage of carcasses and half-carcasses of lamb in Great Britain. (3) In accordance with Article 12(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90, a maximum amount of aid for private storage should be fixed on the basis of tenders received or no award made in respect of the invitations to tender. (4) The tenders received lead the Commission to fix a maximum amount of aid. Tenders not exceeding this amount should be accepted. The intervention agencies are authorised to conclude private storage contracts for private storage. (5) The operators affected by this Decision should be allowed to make use of it as soon as possible. (6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sheep and Goats, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The aid referred to in Article 12(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 3446/90 for the second invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 1641/2001 shall be EUR 1190 per tonne. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Done at Brussels, 4 October 2001.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1436/97 of 23 July 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 laying down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the arrangements provided for in the Europe Agreements between the Community and the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3491/93 of 13 December 1993 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3492/93 of 13 December 1993 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3296/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic of the other part (3), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3297/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part (4), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3066/95 of 22 December 1995 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreements to take account of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2490/96 (6), and in particular Article 8 thereof, Whereas Article 4 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 (7), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1115/97 (8), stipulates that licence applications for the three months from 1 July to 30 September 1997 may only be lodged during a ten-day period starting 15 July; Whereas, in order to permit the application from 1 July 1997 of the results of the negotiations on the Additional Protocols to the Europe Agreements as regards the agricultural sector, in anticipation of the entry into force of the Additional Protocols themselves, Regulation (EC) No 3066/95 should be amended; whereas it was not possible for the Council to decide on the proposed amendment before 1 July 1997; whereas, therefore, because of the exceptional circumstances and in order to guarantee proper administration of the arrangements, the period for the lodging of licence applications for the third quarter of 1997 should be put back by 15 additional days; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 In Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 584/92, the last subparagraph is replaced by the following: 'However, for the three months from 1 July to 30 September 1997, licence applications may only be lodged during a period of 10 days commencing on 1 August.` Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 23 July 1997.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1156/91 of 3 May 1991 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products of category 159 (order No 42.1590), originating in China, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 apply THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof, Whereas Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II thereto to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 8 of Annex I and column 7 of Annex II, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes; Whereas Article 11 of the abovementioned Regulation provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached the Community level; Whereas, in respect of products of category 159 (order No 42.1590), originating in China, the relevant ceiling amounts to 39 tonnes; Whereas on 12 February 1991 imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in China, a country covered by preferential tariff arrangements, reached and were charged against that ceiling; Whereas it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties for the products in question with regard to China, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 As from 7 May 1991 the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in China: Order No Category (unit) CN code Description 42.1590 159 6204 49 10 6206 10 00 Dresses, blouses and shirt-blouses of silk or silk waste 6214 10 00 Shawls, scarves, mufflers, mantillas, veils and the like: - Of silk or silk waste 6215 10 00 Ties, bow ties and cravats: - Of silk or silk waste Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 May 1991.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1920/91 of 27 June 1991 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products falling within CN code 2905 14 90, originating in Poland, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 apply THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof, Whereas, pursuant to Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, suspension of customs duties shall be accorded to each of the countries or territories listed in Annex III other than those listed in column 4 of Annex I within the framework of the preferential tariff ceilings fixed in column 6 of Annex I; Whereas, as provided for in Article 7 of that Regulation, as soon as the individual ceilings in question are reached at Community level, the levying of customs duties on imports of the products in question originating in each of the countries and territories concerned may at any time be re-established; Whereas, in the case of products falling within CN code 2905 14 90, originating in Poland, the individual ceiling was fixed at ECU 772 000; whereas, on 4 April 1991, imports of these products into the Community originating in Poland reached the ceiling in question after being charged thereagainst; whereas, it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties in respect of the products in question against Poland, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 As from 5 July 1991, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products originating in Poland: Order No CN code Description 10.0135 2905 14 90 Acyclic alcohols and their halogenated sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives Saturated monohydric alcohols Other butanols Other Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 27 June 1991.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1894/98 of 3 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3046/92 with regard to the simplification of the statement of net mass THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3046/92 (2), and in particular Article 23 (3) and Article 30 thereof, Whereas the quantity of goods is a reliable and stable item of information which is necessary for comparisons of international trade; Whereas the quantity units are used for checking the reliability of the data collected and for calculating indices; Whereas, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3046/92, of the quantity units, net mass, in kilograms, is the main indicator and should in principle be mentioned for every type of goods but is not the most appropriate unit of measurement for certain products; whereas the party responsible for providing information should therefore be exempted from indicating net mass in such cases; Whereas, Regulation (EC) No 3046/92, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2385/96 (3), already contained an initial list of products for which the parties responsible for providing information are not required to specify the net mass; whereas, insofar as possible, other goods should be added to this list; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are consonant with the opinion of the Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Annex IV to Regulation No 3046/92 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 January 1999. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 September 1998.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2907/2000 of 28 December 2000 opening tariff quotas for the year 2001 for imports into the European Community of products originating in the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000(2) and in particular Article 7(2) thereof, Having regard to Council Decision 98/707/EC of 22 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(3), and in particular Articles 2 and 6 of that Protocol, Having regard to Council Decision 98/638/EC of 5 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(4), and in particular Articles 2 and 6 of that Protocol, Having regard to Council Decision 98/626/EC of 5 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(5), and in particular Articles 2 and 5 of that Protocol, Having regard to Council Decision 1999/67/EC of 22 October 1998 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(6), and in particular Articles 2 and 5 of that Protocol, Having regard to Council Decision 1999/278/EC of 9 March 1999 relating to the conclusion of a Protocol for the adaptation of the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Bulgaria, of the other part, to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the results of the agricultural negotiations of the Uruguay Round, including the improvements of the existing preferential regime(7), and in particular Articles 2 and 5 of that Protocol, Whereas: (1) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with the Czech Republic, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in the Czech Republic. (2) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with the Slovak Republic, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in the Slovak Republic. (3) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with Romania, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in Romania. (4) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Hungary, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in Hungary. (5) Protocol 3 on trade in processed agricultural products, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Europe Agreement with Bulgaria, provides for the granting of annual tariff quotas for imports of products originating in Bulgaria. (6) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(8), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2787/2000(9), consolidated the arrangements for managing the tariff quotas to be used in chronological order of the dates of acceptance of the declarations for release for free circulation. (7) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for horizontal questions concerning trade in processed agricultural products not listed in Annex I, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The annual quotas for products originating in the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, set out in Annexes I, II, III and IV respectively to this Regulation, are hereby opened from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 under the conditions set out in the said Annexes. Article 2 The Community tariff quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be managed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply with effect from 5 January 2001. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 28 December 2000.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

++++ ( 1 ) OJ No L 42 , 23 . 2 . 1970 , p . 1 . ( 2 ) OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1980 , p . 34 . ( 3 ) OJ No L 76 , 6 . 4 . 1970 , p . 23 and OJ No L 65 , 15 . 3 . 1979 , p . 42 . ( 4 ) OJ No L 128 , 26 . 5 . 1979 , p . 22 . ( 5 ) OJ No L 266 , 2 . 10 . 1974 , p . 4 . COMMISSION DIRECTIVE of 13 April 1981 amending Directive 79/490/EEC adapting to technical progress Council Directive 70/221/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to liquid fuel tanks and rear underrun protection of motor vehicles and their trailers ( 81/333/EEC ) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community , Having regard to Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers ( 1 ) , as last amended by Directive 80/1267/EEC ( 2 ) , and in particular Article 13 thereof , Having regard to Council Directive 70/221/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to liquid fuel tanks and rear underrun protection of motor vehicles and their trailers ( 3 ) , as last amended by Directive 79/490/EEC ( 4 ) , and in particular Article 3 thereof , Whereas , experience has shown that the current wording of item II.5.2 of the Annex to Directive 79/490/EEC relating to the rear underrun protection of vehicles in categories M1 , M2 , M3 , N1 , O1 and O2 is rather vague in respect of the width over which the requirement must be satisfied ; whereas this may lead to different requirements by different standardization services with the risk of contradictions with Council Directive 74/483/EEC ( 5 ) relating to external projections of vehicles in category M1 , and also of technical barriers to trade , HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE : Article 1 Directive 79/490/EEC is hereby amended as follows : The text of item II.5.2 of the Annex shall be replaced by the following text : " II.5.2 . Any vehicle in one of the categories M1 , M2 , M3 , N1 , O1 , or O2 ( categories under the international classification set out in note ( b ) of Annex I to Council Directive 70/156/EEC ) will be deemed to satisfy the condition set out in item II.5.1 : _ if it satisfies the conditions set out in item II.5.3 , or _ if the ground clearance of the rear part of the unladen vehicle does not exceed 55 cm over a width which is not shorter than that of the rear axle by more than 10 cm on either side ( excluding any tyre bulging close to the ground ) . Where there is more than one rear axle , the width to be considered is that of the widest . This requirement must be satisfied at least on a line at a distance of not more than 45 cm from the rear extremity of the vehicle . " Article 2 Before 1 October 1981 , Member States shall bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive , and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof . Article 3 This Directive is addressed to the Member States . Done at Brussels , 13 April 1981 .

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1312/97 of 8 July 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 of 30 June 1992 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof, Whereas Article 4 (4) (b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 of 21 December 1993 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2073/92 on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 750/97 (3), provides that applications for funding under the Regulation shall be valid only where they are accompanied by a written undertaking to commission an assessment study, at the applicant's expense, if this is requested by the Commission or by the competent body; Whereas, in the light of experience, and to ensure a uniform approach with promotion measures for other agricultural products, these provisions should be modified; whereas evaluation studies should be carried out on all contracts for promotion measures; whereas the assessment studies should be considered a part of the measures in the programme and, as a consequence, should be financed under the same conditions as other planned measures; whereas the assessment study should be executed by an independent body selected by the competent authority after prior approval by the Commission; Whereas, as a result of the latest enlargement of the European Community, the Annex comprising the list of competent bodies pursuant to Article 4 (2) must be amended; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 3582/93 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article 4 (4) (b) is replaced by the following: '(b) to forward to the competent authority and to the Commission the results of an assessment study which shall be executed by an independent body selected by the competent authority after prior approval by the Commission; the assessment study shall be financed under the same conditions as other planned measures;` 2. the Annex is replaced by the Annex hereto. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 8 July 1997.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 11/2003 of 3 January 2003 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 20th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002(2), and in particular Article 27(5) thereof, Whereas: (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 of 23 July 2002 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar(3), for the 2002/2003 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar. (2) Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. (3) Following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the 20th partial invitation to tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be adopted. (4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 For the 20th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 the maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at 47,426 EUR/100 kg. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 January 2003. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 January 2003.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1262/96 of 1 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1544/95 (2), and in particular Article 32 (5) thereof, Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2537/95 (4), lays down detailed rules of application for the conclusion of storage contracts; whereas Article 5 (1) thereof provides, in the case of table wine only, for the conclusion of a maximum of two contracts for wines from a single winery; whereas the same conditions should be laid down for all products that may be covered by a storage contract; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 is hereby replaced by the following: '1. For each of the products referred to in Article 12 (c), (d) and (e) and for table wines from a single winery which are of the same type or in close economic relationship with each other and for which a common amount of aid is fixed, producers shall not conclude more than (two) long-term contracts.` Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 September 1996. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 1 July 1996.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 970/90 of 18 April 1990 laying down detailed rules for the application in the beef and veal sector of Council Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States or in the overseas countries and territories and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 of 5 March 1990 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the ACP States or in the overseas countries and territories (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 on the value of the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1636/87 (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof, Whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 lays down that the duties on imports of beef and veal originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States are to be reduced; Whereas the amounts of import duties depend upon the level of the levy applicable and that levy may be adjusted by monetary compensatory amounts; whereas, having regard to the trend in the currencies of the individual Member States, the amount of the reduction should be calculated separately for each Member State taking account of the monetary compensatory amount applicable to imports into the Member State concerned; Whereas it appears useful to outline the manner in which the amount actually to be levied on imports is calculated; Whereas the amount by which the import duties are reduced is fixed quarterly; Whereas the amount representing import duties is that applicable on the day of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation; whereas these duties are reduced by the reduction applicable on that date; Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 252/90 (5), lays down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences in the beef and veal sector; whereas the special detailed rules for licences issued under Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 which replaces Council Regulation (EEC) No 486/85 (6) should be adapted; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. Import licences shall be issued for beef and veal products originating in Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland and Zimbabwe under the conditions laid down in this Regulation and within the limits of the quantities, expressed in tonnes of boned meat, fixed in Regulation (EEC) No 715/90. 2. For the purposes of this Regulation, 100 kilograms of boned meat shall be equivalent to 130 kilograms of unboned meat. Article 2 Importation under the arrangements for import duty reduction may take place only if the origin of the products concerned is certified by the competent authorities of the exporting countries in accordance with the rules of origin applicable to the products in question pursuant to Protocol 1 to the fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989. Article 3 1. The amount provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 for each product intended for importation into a Member State shall be equal to 90 % of the amount of the levy, adjusted as appropriate by the monetary compensatory amount valid for imports into that Member State during the week preceding that in which the quarter for which the reduction is calculated begins. The reduction shall be fixed for each Member State in its national currency. 2. The reduction shall be reducted from the levy valid on the day on which the entry of the goods for free circulation is accepted in the Member State concerned, adjusted as appropriate by the monetary coefficient shown in Annex II to the relevant Commission Regulation fixing the monetary compensatory amounts and by the monetary compensatory amount valid in the Member State concerned on the same date. 3. The amount by which the import duties shall be reduced shall be that applicable on the date on which the entry of the goods for release for free circulation is accepted. 4. The application of this Regulation may in no case result in the graning of an amount. Article 4 Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article 13 (1) is replaced by the following: '1. Applications for import licences for products to be imported duty free purusant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 715/90 and qualifying, as appropriate, for either a reduction of import duties other than customs duties in accordance with Article 3 of the said Regulation or exemption from levies in accordance with Article 24 of the said Regulation and the licences themselves shall contain: (a) the heading 'notes' and section 24 respectively one of the following: - Producto ACP/PTU - Reglamento (CEE) no 715/90, - AVS/OLT-varer - forordning (EOEF) nr. 715/90, - AKP/UELG-Erzeugnis - Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 715/90, - Proïón AKE/YXE - kanonismós (EOK) arith. 715/90, - ACP/OCT-product - Regulation (EEC) No 715/90, - Produit ACP/PTOM - règlement (CEE) no 715/90, - Prodotto ACP/PTOM - regolamento (CEE) n. 715/90, - ACS/LGO-produkt - Verordening (EEG) nr. 715/90. (b) in Section 8, the name of the State, country or territory in which the product is to originate. 2. Point 1 of Section I of Annex I is replaced by the following: '1. ACP/OCT products (Under Regulation (EEC) No 715/90) (expressed in tonnes of boned meat) 1.2.3,7 // // // // CN code // // From // // // // 1.2.3.4.5.6.7 // // // Madagascar // Botswana // Swaziland // Kenya // Zimbabwe // // Code // 370 // 391 // 393 // 346 // 382 // // // // // // // // 0201 0206 10 95 // 110 // // // // // // // // // // // // // 0202 0206 29 91 // 120' // // // // // // // // // // // // Article 5 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 552/85 (1) is hereby repealed. Article 6 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 March 1990 This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 18 April 1990.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1943/85 of 12 July 1985 amending Regulation (EEC) No 95/69 as regards certain marketing standards for eggs THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 of 29 October 1975 on marketing standards for eggs (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3341/84 (2), and in particular Articles 18 (1) and 21 thereof, Whereas provisions for the implementation of marketing standards for hen eggs in shell were laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 95/69 (3), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece; whereas those provisions should be supplemented in accordance with the recent amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75; Whereas Article 18 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 requires that additional provisions be laid down concerning the conditions under which the recommended sell-by date may be indicated on small packs; whereas it seems appropriate to relate that date to the quality criteria for eggs; Whereas Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 provides that indications concerning the type of farming and the origin of eggs may be used only in accordance with rules determined at Community level; Whereas, in view of current commercial practice, it seems unnecessary to provide for specific indications for the eggs of laying hens kept in batteries; whereas, however, provision should be made for a limited number of indications for the eggs of hens not raised in batteries so as to avoid confusion amongst consumers as regards the principal non-battery production system; whereas detailed rules should be laid down for ensuring the correct use of such indications and for monitoring such use; Whereas the indications concerning the origin of eggs should refer to the region of production; whereas packing centres which make use of these indications should be obliged to keep detailed records of purchases and sales of eggs by origin in order to enable effective monitoring to be carried out; Whereas, in order to ensure uniform application of the provisions of Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75, provision should be made for the continuous exchange of information between Member States and the Commission concerning monitoring; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EEC) No 95/69 is hereby amended as follows: 1. After Article 9, the following Articles are inserted: 'Article 10 The recommended sell-by date mentioned in Article 18 (1) (e) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 is an indication of the last date eggs should be offered for sale to the consumer, after which there remains a reasonable storage period in the home. It shall be fixed in such a way that grade A eggs will retain the characteristics described in Article 7 of that Regulation until the end of that storage period when properly stored. The indication must be worded in such a way that the meaning of this date is clear. Article 11 1. Small packs containing grade A eggs may carry one of the following terms, as appropriate, to indicate the type of farming as referred to in Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75: (a) "AEg fra fritgaaende hoens", "Eier aus Freilandhaltung", "Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí se eléfthero chóro vóskisis", "Free range eggs", "OEufs de poules élevées en plein air - système extensif", "Uova di allevamento all'aperto - sistema estensivo", "Eieren van hennen met vrije uitloop - extensief systeem"; (b) "AEg fra fritgaaende hoens - intensivt system", "Eier aus intensiver Auslaufhaltung", "Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí se periorisméno chóro vóskisis", "Semi-intensive eggs", "OEufs de poules élevées en plein air", "Uova di allevamento all'aperto", "Eieren van hennen met vrije uitloop"; (c) "Skrabeaeg", "Eier aus Bodenhaltung", "Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí edáfoys", "Deep litter eggs", "OEufs de poules élevées au sol", "Uova di galline allevate al suolo", "Scharreleieren"; (d) "AEg fra volierehoensehold", "Eier aus Volierenhaltung", "Avgá orníthon apó ektrofí se thálamo me klimakotó skarotó dápedo", "Perchery eggs (Barn eggs)", "OEufs de poules élevées en volière", "Uova di galline allevate in voliera", "Eieren van in volières gehouden hennen". The terms given in (a), (b), (c) and (d) may be used only for eggs produced in poultry enterprises meeting the criteria set out in the Annex. 2. Packing centres authorized to use the terms referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall be subject to special registration in accordance with Article 2. They shall keep a separate record, by type of farming: - of the names and addresses of the producers of such eggs, who shall be registered following an inspection by the competent authority of the Member State, - at the request of this authority the number of laying hens kept by each producer. The said producers shall subsequently be inspected regularly. They shall keep current records of the number of laying hens by type of poultry system, showing also the number of eggs produced and delivered and the names of the purchasers. 3. Each Member State shall provide the other Member State and the Commission with a list of the packing centres in its territory thus registered, showing their names and addresses and the code number allotted to each centre. Any alteration to that list shall be communicated to the other Member States and to the Commission at the beginning of each quarter of the calendar year. 4. Eggs as referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall be delivered to packing centres in containers bearing one of the terms mentioned in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d) in one or more Community languages. Deliveries shall be identified by name and address of producer, type, number or weight of eggs and date of delivery, and up-to-date records thereof shall be kept at the packing centre. 5. Eggs as referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d) shall be graded and packed only on days indicated at least one working day in advance to the competent authority of the Member State. During storage, grading and packing they shall be clearly separated from any other eggs. 6. Packing centres as referred to in paragraph 2 shall keep separate records of sales of small packs marked in accordance with paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d), including name and address of buyer, number of packs, number and/or weight of eggs sold by grade of weight and date of delivery. Instead of keeping records, they may however, keep files of invoices or delivery notes marked as indicated in 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d). 7. Large packs containing small packs marked in accordance with paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d) shall bear one of the following indications: "FREE RANGE EGGS" "SEMI-INTENSIVE EGGS" "DEEP LITTER EGGS" "PERCHERY EGGS (BARN EGGS)". 8. The forms of wording referred to in paragraphs 1 and 7 shall be affixed at least in the language or languages of the Member State in which retailing or any other use takes place. 9. These provisions shall apply without prejudice to national technical measures going beyond the minimum requirements given in the Annex, which are applicable only to producers of the Member State concerned, provided that they are compatible with Community law and are in conformity with the common marketing standards for eggs. 10. The national measures referred to in paragraph 8 shall be communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75. 11. At any time and at the request of the Commission, Member States shall provide all the information necessary for assessing the compatibility of the measures referred to in this Article with Community law and their conformity with the common marketing standards for eggs. Article 12 1. In order to indicate the origin of eggs on small packs in accordance with Article 21 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75, terms may be used which refer to the Member State and/or to an administrative or other region, defined by the competent authority of the Member State in which the eggs were produced. 2. Packing centres which make use of the terms referred to in paragraph 1 shall keep a detailed record of deliveries by origin, showing name and address of the producer, number or weight of eggs and date of delivery. The producer shall keep current records of the number of laying hens, showing also the number of eggs produced and delivered. 3. Packing centres as referred to in paragraph 2 shall keep separate records of sales of small packs marked with the terms referred to in paragraph 1, including name and address of buyer, number of packs, number or weight of eggs sold and date of delivery. Instead of keeping records, they may however keep files of invoices or delivery notes marked as indicated in paragraph 1. 4. Large packs containing small packs marked with the terms referred to in paragraph 1 shall bear the same terms. Article 13 1. Each Member State shall report to the other Member States and to the Commission: - the monitoring methods applied for the implementation of this Regulation, - annually, before 1 April, the average number of laying hens present (1), the number or weight of eggs delivered as recorded in accordance with Article 11 (2) and (4) as well as the number or weight of eggs sold, as recorded in accordance with Article 11 (6), in the previous calendar year. 2. The checks carried out in the Member States shall be discussed, on a regular basis, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75. (1) Average number of laying hens present = number of hens placed × laying weeks 52.' 2. Articles 10 to 16 are renumbered 14 to 20. 3. The Annex to this Regulation is added. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 12 July 1985.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

REGULATION (EEC) No 1275/75 OF THE COUNCIL of 20 May 1975 deleting certain products from the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 establishing common rules for exports THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 (1) of 20 December 1969 establishing common rules for exports, and in particular Article 10 thereof; Having regard to the proposal from the Commission; Whereas exports of certain products included in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 have been liberalized by the Member State which up to now has been alone in maintaining quantitative restrictions and it is now possible to apply the principle of freedom of export to those products at Community level, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The products covered by the undermentioned tariff headings are hereby deleted from the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69: 06.01 07.05 09.01 12.03 21.02 Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 20 May 1975.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL DECISION of 13 March 1997 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway (97/269/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof, in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) and the first subparagraph of Article 228 (3), Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas the national arrangements on customs cooperation concluded between the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Finland, on the one hand, and between the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of Sweden, on the other hand, should, for the matters falling within the Community's jurisdiction, be replaced by a Community system; Whereas the frontier cooperation agreements help to facilitate trade and the efficient allocation of resources over a limited number of frontier posts situated in outermost regions, in particular for the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden; whereas such regions have a number of peculiarities relating to their geography (extremely harsh climatic conditions, extremely long borders, long internal distances, great difficulty in gaining access to certain areas) and to their very low density of population and traffic and these peculiarities are new in the Community context and require special attention if the regions and economic operators concerned are not to be penalized; Whereas on 25 October 1996 the Council authorized the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Community, an agreeement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway; Whereas the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden should assume full responsibility, including financial liability, towards the Community for all acts performed or to be performed on their behalf by the Norwegian customs authorities; Whereas the Finnish and Swedish customs authorities respectively should conclude with the Norwegian customs authorities an administrative arrangement for the implementation of the Agreement; whereas such arrangements should be notified to the Commission; whereas the Finnish and Swedish customs authorities should be accountable to the Commission for the implementation of the Agreement; Whereas the Agreement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters negotiated between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway should be approved, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The Agreement on customs cooperation in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway is hereby approved on behalf of the Community. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. Article 2 The Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall assume full responsibility, including financial liability, towards the Community for all acts performed or to be performed on their behalf by the Norwegian customs authorities. Article 3 1. The Finnish and the Swedish customs authorities respectively shall conclude with the Norwegian customs authorities an administrative arrangement for the implementation of the Agreement. These arrangements shall be notified to the Commission of the European Communties. 2. The Finnish and the Swedish customs authorities respectively shall be accountable to the Commission for the implementation of the Agreement. To this end, they shall present a yearly report to the Commission, unless special circumstances were to require additional reports. Article 4 The Community shall be represented on the Joint Committee set up under Article 7 of the Agreement by the Commission assisted by the representatives of the Member States. Article 5 The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community and to give the notification provided for in Article 11 of the Agreement (1). Article 6 This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communties. Done at Brussels, 13 March 1997.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 17 May 2005 amending Decision 2004/233/EC as regards the list of laboratories authorised to check the effectiveness of vaccination against rabies in certain domestic carnivores (notified under document number C(2005) 1439) (Text with EEA relevance) (2005/392/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 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 thereof, Whereas: (1) Decision 2000/258/EC designated the laboratory of the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments de Nancy (the AFSSA Laboratory, Nancy, France) as the institute responsible for establishing the criteria necessary for standardising the serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. That Decision also provides for the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy to send to the Commission the list of Community laboratories to be authorised to carry out those serological tests. Accordingly, the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy operates the established proficiency testing procedure to appraise laboratories for authorisation to perform the serological tests. (2) Commission Decision 2004/233/EC of 4 March 2004 authorising laboratories to check the effectiveness of vaccination against rabies in certain domestic carnivores (2), established a list of approved laboratories in the Member States on the grounds of the results of the proficiency tests communicated by the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy. (3) Five laboratories, respectively in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary had been approved by the AFSSA Laboratory of Nancy, in compliance with Decision 2000/258/EC. (4) Accordingly, it is appropriate to add those five laboratories to the list of approved laboratories in the Member States as established in the Annex to Decision 2004/233/EC. (5) Decision 2004/233/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. (6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Annex I to Decision 2004/233/EC is replaced by the the Annex to this Decision. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 17 May 2005.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) N° 3990/87 of 23 December 1987 amending Regulation (EEC) N° 1418/76 on the common organization of the market in rice THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) N° 3985/87 (2), and in particular Article 15 thereof, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2658/87 establishes, with effect from 1 January 1988, a combined goods nomenclature based on the Harmonized System which will meet the requirements both of the Common Customs Tariff and the nomenclature of goods for the external trade statistics of the Community; Whereas, as a consequence, it is necessary to express the descriptions of goods and tariff heading numbers which appear in Council Regulation (EEC) N° 1418/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) N° 3877/87 (4), according to the terms of the combined nomenclature; whereas these adaptations do not call for any amendment of substance, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EEC) N° 1418/76 is modified as follows: 1. Article 1 (1) is replaced by the following: '1. The common organization of the market in rice shall comprise a price and trading system and cover the following products: TABLE 2. Article 11 a paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) are replaced by the following: '2. By way of derogation from Article 11 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (i), no levy shall be charged on imports of products falling within subheadings 1006 10 91, 1006 10 99, 1006 20 and 1006 40 00 in the French overseas department of Réunion. 3. By way of derogation from Article 11 (1) (e), (f), (g) and (h), the levy to be charged on imports of products falling within subheading 1006 30 in the French overseas department of Réunion shall be equal to be amount for the protection of the industry referred to in Article 14 (3). 4. For consignments to the French overseas department of Réunion of products falling within heading N° 1006 excluding subheading 1006 10 10 which come from Member States and are in one of the situations referred to in Article 9 (2) of the Treaty, a subsidy shall be granted, on application by the party concerned, equal to the levy in force for the product concerned. However, this subsidy shall: - in respect of products falling within subheadings 1006 30 11 and 1006 30 19 be equal to the levy applicable to products falling within subheading 1006 20, - in respect of products falling within subheadings 1006 30 91 and 1006 30 99, be reduced by the amount for the protection of the industry referred to in Article 14 (3)'. 3. Annex B shall be replaced by the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1988. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 23 December 1987.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2052/85 of 24 July 1985 on a special intervention measure for durum wheat in Greece THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1018/84 (2), and in particular Article 8 (4) thereof, Whereas production of durum wheat in Greece exceeds that country's requirements; Whereas the possibility of that surplus being absorbed by the Community market is very slight; Whereas the Greek market can be relieved by the export of part of this surplus quantity of durum wheat to non-member countries; whereas, in view of world market prices for durum wheat, export is possible only with the aid of a refund; Whereas, however, the refund arrangements laid down in Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 apply to export from any Member State; whereas such arrangements, therefore, are not only unsuitable for solving the problem in question but may also favour the export of durum wheat from Member States where the market situation is completely different from that in Greece; Whereas, in the absence of adequate measures, massive quantities of durum wheat may be expected to enter intervention storage in Greece, in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75, the only possibility of disposal being in any case export to non-member countries; whereas, to avoid the abovementioned intervention, a special intervention measure intended to relieve the Greek market should be taken under Article 8 of the said Regulation; whereas, furthermore, such a measure should take the form of a direct export incentive, which would avoid the high cost to the Community budget of buying in and storing products which would in any case then have to be exported; whereas the granting of a refund, the amount of which would be determined by tendering and which would apply only to products exported from Greece, would be an appropriate measure for this purpose; Whereas the purpose of the measures is such that refunds should be granted only on wheat of the quality required for acceptance for intervention, as defined in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1569/77 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2096/84 (4); whereas the competent agency must make certain that wheat exported is of this standard; Whereas the nature and objectives of the said measures make it appropriate to apply in respect of it mutatis mutandis Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 and the Regulations adopted for the application thereof, in particular Council Regulation (EEC) No 2746/75 of 29 October 1975 laying down general rules for granting export refunds on cereals and criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (5) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 279/75 of 4 February 1975 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of tendering for export refunds on cereals (6), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2944/78 (7); Whereas, under the abovementioned Regulation (EEC) No 279/75, the commitments on the part of the tenderer include the obligation to lodge an application for an export licence; whereas compliance with this obligation may be ensured by requiring tenderers to lodge a tendering security of 12 ECU per tonne when they submit their tenders; Whereas, in order to ensure equal treatment of all concerned, it is necessary to make provision for the licences issued to have an identical period of validity; Whereas, in order to ensure the smooth operation of the export tendering procedure, it is appropriate to prescribe a minimum quantity to be tendered for and a time limit and form for the communication of tenders submitted to the competent authorities; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. A special intervention measure in the form of an export refund shall be applied in respect of 150 000 tonnes of durum wheat exported from Greece. Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 and the provisions adopted for the application of that Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to the said refund. 2. The Greek intervention agency shall be responsible for implementing the measure referred to in paragraph 1. Article 2 1. Tenders shall be invited in order to determine the amount of the refund referred to in Article 1. 2. The invitation to tender shall relate to the quantity of durum wheat referred to in Article 1 (1) for export to the countries in zones I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1124/77 (1) and the German Democratic Republic. 3. The invitation shall remain open until 19 December 1985. During the period of its validity weekly awards shall be made, for which the time limits for the submission of tenders shall be as prescribed in the notice of invitation to tender. 4. Tenders must be submitted to the Greek intervention agency named in the notice of invitation. 5. The tendering procedure shall take place in accordance with this Regulation and Regulation (EEC) No 279/75. Article 3 A tender shall be valid only if: - it relates to not less than 1 000 tonnes, - it is accompanied by: - advance fixing of the Greek monetary compensatory amount valid on each closing date for the submission of tenders, - the undertaking provided for in Article 2 (3) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 279/75 that the export licence will be applied for in Greece. Article 4 The security referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 279/75 shall be 12 ECU per tonne. Article 5 1. By way of derogation from Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3183/80 (2), export licences issued in accordance with Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 279/75 shall, for the purpose of determining their period of validity, be deemed to have been issued on the day on which the tender was submitted. 2. Export licences issued in connection with the invitation to tender pursuant to this Regulation shall be valid from their date of issue, as defined in paragraph 1, until the end of the third month following that of issue. Article 6 1. The Commission shall decide, under the procedure laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75, either: - to fix a maximum export refund, taking account in particular of the criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2746/75, or - to make no award. 2. Where a maximum export refund is fixed, a contract shall be awarded to any tenderer whose tender indicates a rate of refund equal to or less than such maximum export refund. 3. A refund awarded shall not be paid unless the durum wheat exported is of at least intervention quality as defined in Regulation (EEC) No 1569/77. The competent agency shall have an analysis made of the landed goods and shall hold at the Commission's disposal an additional sample from each consignment taken and sealed in the presence of the tenderer or his representative. Sampling and analysis costs shall be met by the tenderer. Article 7 Tenders submitted must reach the Commission through the intermediary of the Greek intervention agency at the latest one and a half hours after expiry of the period for the weekly submission of tenders as specified in the notice of invitation to tender. They must be communicated in the form indicated in the Annex. If no tenders are received, the Greek intervention agency shall inform the Commission of this within the period indicated in the first paragraph. The times fixed for the submission of tenders shall correspond to Belgian time. Article 8 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 24 July 1985.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 11 November 1992 concerning a draft order of the Brussels region providing for aid to promote economic growth and scientific research (Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic) (93/134/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93 (2) thereof, Having given the parties concerned notice to submit their comments, in accordance with Article 93, Whereas: I By note dated 26 July 1991 from its Permanent Representation, the Belgian Government notified the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Article 93 (3) of the EEC Treaty, of a draft order of the Brussels region providing for aid to promote economic growth and scientific research. Additional information was requested from the Belgian authorities by letter dated 8 August 1991. The Belgian authorities' reply was received by the Commission on 27 September 1991. By letter dated 9 December 1991, the Commission informed the Belgian Government that it had decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty in respect of the aid and requested the Belgian Government to submit its comments. Interested third parties were informed of the Commission's decision through publication of a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 29 January 1992 (1). No comments were received from interested third parties. The aid provided for in the draft order in respect of which the abovementioned procedure war initiated may be described as follows: - aid for industrial and craft-based undertakings in the form of capital grants or interest subsidies, possibly coupled with a guarantee by the region and the State and amounting to: - 20 % of the investment where the sole object of the investment is the rational use of energy, water or raw materials, environmental protection or the specific adjustment of the undertaking to its particular location or its relocation in an urban environment, - 8 % of any investment carried out by an undertaking situated in a 'less-favoured urban district'; - aid of the same type, without any maximum rate, for the purposes of sectoral aid or for technological or other facilities which are of particular importance for the Brussels region; - aid of up to 50 % of the cost of economic, technical and financial studies relating to the abovementioned investments (80 % with a maximum of Bfrs 5 million); - R & D aid, in the form of grants for basic research, amounting to 50 % of the cost of the project (60 % in the case of small and medium businesses - SMBs - and research involving a considerable business risk or being of particular interest at European level), and in the form of an advance involving conditional or unconditional repayment, amounting to 40 % (50 %) of the project in the case of applied research or accompanying measures; - progress contracts concluded with undertakings for the carrying-out of multiannual programmes including any technological, industrial and development operation and comprising aid of up to 15 % of the investment, though this ceiling may be exceeded in the case of European industrial programmes that are the subject of national or international agreements. II The aid provided for under the draft order is caught by the provisions of Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty. Both the acceptance (or rejection) of applications and the determination of the amount and the terms of the aid are assessed and decided on in each individual case by the competent Brussels authorities. The aid will thus be granted by the State through State resources. It should be borne in mind that all aid granted by regional or local bodies of Member States, whatever their status and description, is covered by the provisions of Article 92 (1) of the EEC Treaty (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 October 1987 in Case 248/84, Germany v. Commission (2). By relieving certain undertakings of some of their costs, such aid gives such undertakings financial advantages and improves their competitive position. Since the production of such undertakings may be in competition with that of undertakings in other Member States, such aid is liable to distort intra-Community trade. The Article 93 (2) procedure was initiated because some of the aid was ineligible for any of the derogations from the prohibition of aid provided for in Article 92 (2) and (3) of the EEC Treaty. This was the case with the following aid: - the aid for sectoral purposes or for technological or other facilities having particular importance for the Brussels region, and aid provided for under 'progress contracts'. Such aid, being general and non-specific in nature, did not have any features that would allow it to be exempted under Article 92 (2) and (3), but did, on the contrary, have negative repercussions at Community level, in that it would have thwarted the effects of regional development policies and would have attracted 'footloose investment' at the expense of other Member States, - the aid provided for in respect of investments carried out by undertakings situated in less-favoured urban districts. Such aid did not qualify for a derogation as regional aid, since the Brussels region is not eligible for regional aid and since, because it related to any investment whatsoever and regardless of the size of the undertaking, the aid was general in nature and therefore incompatible with the EEC Treaty, - the aid for the specific adjustment of undertakings to the urban environment. By making it easier for them to remain in the Brussels region, such aid would have had the effect of counteracting the attraction of regional aid schemes and could not therefore be in the Community interest, - as regards the aid provided for in respect of R & D, the aid for applied research and accompanying measures did not comply with the maximum rates laid down by the Community framework for State aid for R & D. III As part of the procedure, an exploratory meeting took place on 11 February 1992 between the Commission and the relevant Brussels authorities. It was followed by an exchange of notes, dated 9 April 1992 from the Belgian authorities and 1 June 1992 from the Commission. By letter dated 23 June 1992 from its Permanent Representation, the Belgian Government sent the Commission an amended draft order of the Brussels region accompanied by comments on the articles and an explanatory memorandum on the amendments made to the original draft. The amendments take account in particular of the provisions of the new framework on aid to SMBs as regards the definition and intensity of the aid authorized for investment and for economic, technical and financial studies. Examination of the amended draft has led to the findings set out below regarding the various measures that had led to the initiation of Article 93 (2) proceedings. The provision allowing aid to be granted for sectoral, technological or other purposes has been amended, and Article 7 of the new draft restricts the scope for such aid to cases 'of sectoral aid decided by the Commission of the European Communities, or else of a technological research or development programme of the European Community'. The 'progress contracts' have been replaced by the concept of specific contracts and, according to the explanations of the relevant provision, Article 14, their use is intended solely to enable the Brussels region to participate in European programmes such as the Airbus programme. The aid for investment by undertakings in less-favoured urban districts will in future be confined to SMBs as defined in the framework on aid for SMBs, and its amount will be limited to 7,5 % of the cost of investment. The aid for the specific adjustment of undertakings to the urban environment or their relocation in an urban environment has been withdrawn. The chapter relating to R & D aid has been deleted from the draft order. IV As a result of the substantial amendments to the draft order of the Brussels region, application of the provisions that gave rise to the initiation of proceedings will be restricted to the granting of aid that may be deemed compatible with the common market either because what is involved is the counterpart of Community aid or because the aid fulfils the conditions laid down by the Community frameworks on national aid. Thus, with regard to the aid relating to less-favoured urban districts, the fact of restricting eligibility for the aid to SMBs as defined in the framework on aid for SMBs and of limiting its amount to 7,5 % of the cost of the investment concerned, as provided for in the framework, makes the aid compatible with the EEC Treaty. The same is true with regard to the provisions of Article 7 of the draft order, provided that the restriction of the granting of aid to cases involving Community aid or national aid covered by a Community framework is set out clearly in Article 7. The Commission's Decision is consequently coupled with the requirement that Article 7 be thus amended. The same also applies with regard to the provisions of Article 14 relating to 'specific contracts', provided that the wording of Article 14 stipulates explicitly that the award of such contracts will relate solely to participation in important projects of common European interest within the meaning of Article 92 (3) (b) of the EEC Treaty that are recognized as such by the Commission of the European Communities. This requirement is also a condition of the Commission's Decision to approve the draft order. It may accordingly be concluded that the aid thus restricted is eligible for the derogation provided for in Article 92 (3) (c) of the EEC Treaty. Application of the aid provided for in the draft order is of course also subject to the rules and guidelines of Community law relating to State aid, including certain sectors of activity in industry and agriculture and certain industrial agricultural holdings, and those relating to the combining of different types of aid, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The aid provided for in the draft order of the Brussels region, as notified to the Commission by note dated 23 June 1992, may be regarded as compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 (3) (c) of the EEC Treaty provided that the conditions stipulated in the following Articles are met. Article 2 The granting of aid within the framework of sectoral or technological programmes, as provided for in Article 7 of the draft, shall be restricted solely to cases of national financing that supplements aid from Community funds, or of aid falling within the limits laid down in a Community framework on national aid. The Belgian Government shall take the measures necessary to amend Article 7 of the draft order in such a way that the abovementioned restrictions are explicitly laid down. Article 3 The granting of aid within the framework of specific contracts, as provided for in Article 14 of the draft order, shall concern exclusively the participation of the recipient undertakings in one or more important projects of common European interest previously authorized by the Commission pursuant to Article 92 (3) (b). The Belgian Government shall take the necessary measures to amend Article 14 of the draft order in such a way that the abovementioned restriction is explicitly laid down. Article 4 The Belgian Government shall communicate to the Commission within a period of two months of the date of notification of this Decision the text of the draft order of the Brussels region, amended in line with the requirements of this Decision. Article 5 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium. Done at Brussels, 11 November 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

DECISION OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION of 25 February 1991 on the conclusion of the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (91/400/ECSC, EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 238 thereof, Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament (1), Whereas the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed in Lomé on 15 December 1989, should be approved, HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, the Protocols and declarations annexed thereto and the declarations attached to the Final Act are hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community. The texts of the Convention, the Protocols and declarations annexed thereto and the Final Act are attached to this Decision. Article 2 The President of the Council shall, as regards the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community, deposit the act of notification provided for in Article 360 of the Convention. Done at Brussels, 25 February 1991.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 16 August 2005 amending Annex XI to Council Directive 2003/85/EC with regard to national laboratories in certain Member States (notified under document number C(2005) 3121) (Text with EEA relevance) (2005/615/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC (1), and in particular Article 67(2) thereof, Whereas: (1) For security reasons it is important to maintain the list of national laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus updated. (2) The competent authorities of Denmark, Germany and Poland have officially informed the Commission on changes relating to their national reference laboratory for foot-and-mouth disease. (3) The competent authorities of Slovakia officially informed the Commission of arrangements they have made in accordance with Article 68(2) of the Directive. (4) For clarity it appears appropriate to list the Member States in the order of the ISO country code. (5) It is necessary to adapt the list of national laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus and to amend Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC accordingly. (6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The list of National laboratories authorised to handle live foot-and-mouth disease virus in Part A of Annex XI to Directive 2003/85/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision. Article 2 The Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 16 August 2005.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1478/96 of 26 July 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 laying down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the arrangements provided for in the Europe Agreements between the Community and the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3491/93 of 13 December 1993 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3492/93 of 13 December 1993 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3296/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part (3), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3297/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part (4), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3066/95 of 22 December 1995 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an autonomous and transitional adjustment to certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreements so as to take account of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1194/96 (6), and in particular Article 8 thereof, Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 (7), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1228/96 (8), lays down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the arrangements provided for in the above Agreements; whereas that Regulation was amended to take account of the extension of the measures for milk products provided for by Regulation (EC) No 3066/95; Whereas, from 1 July 1996, the quantities of the products referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 relate to a period of six months instead of one year; whereas the staggering of those quantities over the six-month period in question should be clarified and, as a result, Article 2 of that Regulation amended; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The following paragraph is hereby added to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 584/92: 'However, for the period from 1 July 1996 to 31 December 1996 the quantities referred to in Annex I shall be staggered over the year as follows: - 50 % in the period 1 July to 30 September 1996, - 50 % in the period 1 October to 31 December 1996.` Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1996. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 26 July 1996.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2169/81 of 27 July 1981 laying down the general rules for the system of aid for cotton THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to the 1979 Act of Accession, and in particular paragraph 9 of Protocol 4 on cotton, hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol", Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Protocol, it is necessary to lay down the rules of procedure and of sound management for its application, the general rules of the system of production aid, the criteria for determining the world market price and the rules concerning the financing of the measures envisaged; Whereas, in order to facilitate implementation of the production aid system and its sound management, a procedure should be provided for establishing close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission within a Management Committee ; whereas it is appropriate that the Management Committee for Flax and Hemp, provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 (1), as last amended by the 1979 Act of Accession, should perform this function; Whereas in order to facilitate the management and control of the aid system, the aid should be granted to cotton ginning undertakings ; whereas, so that producers may benefit from the system, the grant of aid should be made subject to the condition that they have obtained a price not less than a minimum purchase price to be determined, which should be close to the guide price fixed in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Protocol, or that the aid will be passed on to them; Whereas, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Protocol, if Community production exceeds a quantity fixed in advance, the aid is to be multiplied by a coefficient to be determined ; whereas the amount of the aid to be granted cannot therefore be known until after the quantity produced has been ascertained ; whereas, to reduce the disadvantages for those concerned of any delay in payment of the aid, provision should be made for the advance payment of a proportion of it; Whereas, pursuant to the third subparagraph of paragraph 3 of the Protocol, the amount of aid is to be based on the difference between a guide price fixed for unginned cotton and the world market price ; whereas, since there is no international trade in unginned cotton, and there are therefore no offers of quotations, provision should be made to enable a world market price for this product to be determined ; whereas this price may be determined by taking the value of the products obtained by ginning, and deducting the cost of ginning; Whereas the value of the products obtained should be determined on the basis, first, of a yield in fibre and in seed to be determined and, secondly, of the world market price for those products ; whereas the world market price should be determined on the basis of the most favourable purchasing possibilities on that market; Whereas the offers and quotations taken into consideration should be those made on the world market and the major international exchanges respectively, whereas, however, offers which cannot be considered representative of the real market trend should be ignored; Whereas, if there are no representative offers or quotations for cotton seed, the world market price for cotton seed should be determined by taking the value of the products resulting from the processing of this seed ; whereas, where the offers or quotations for cotton seed on the world market might prejudice the sale of the Community production of cotton seed, the world market price should be determined by taking the value of the average quantities of oil and oil-cake derived from the processing of cotton seed, less the processing costs; Whereas, for the aid system to operate correctly, the world market price must be recorded for a Community frontier crossing point ; whereas, in fixing this point, account should be taken of the extent to which it is representative for imports of cotton seed ; whereas, therefore, the port of Piraeus should be chosen ; whereas the offers and quotations adopted will have to be adjusted if they relate to a different frontier crossing point; Whereas such adjustments should also be made to the offers and quotations adopted, in order to compensate for any variation from the presentation and quality taken as a basis for fixing the guide price; Whereas the producer Member States should be required to set up the control arrangements necessary to ensure that the aid system operates correctly; (1) OJ No L 146, 4.7.1970, p. 1. Whereas, in order that the Community expenditure relating to the measure in question may be subjected to appropriate financial and monetary rules and procedures, Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3509/80 (2), as well as the Regulations relating to the value of the unit of account and the exchange rates to be applied in connection with the common agricultural policy, should be applied in this sector by analogy in view of the specifically agricultural nature of cotton; Whereas the transition from the system in force in the Member States to the system set up by this Regulation must be as smooth as possible ; whereas it seems necessary to provide for transitional measures, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 For the purposes of this Regulation: (a) "unginned cotton" means the fruit of the cotton plant (Gossypium) which has reached maturity and has been harvested, and which contains pod waste, leaves and earthy matter; (b) "ginned cotton" means the cotton fibres (other than linters and waste), neither carded nor combed, from which the seeds and most of the pod waste, leaves and earthy matter have been removed. Article 2 The guide price for a specified quality of unginned cotton shall remain applicable throughout a given marketing year ; the marketing year shall run from 1 August to 31 July. Article 3 1. The computed world market price for unginned cotton shall be determined periodically on the basis of the world market prices recorded for ginned cotton and cotton seed, taking into account the estimated yield of the Community harvest in cotton seed and in ginned cotton and also the net cost of ginning. 2. If the world market price for unginned cotton cannot be determined in accordance with paragraph 1, this price shall be established on the basis of the most recent price determined. Article 4 1. The world market prices for ginned cotton and cotton seed shall be determined in the light of the offers on the world market and the prices quoted on the major international exchanges. 2. The world market prices shall be determined on the basis of the most favourable offers and quotations recorded, excluding offers and quotations which cannot be regarded as representative of the real market trend. 3. As regards ginned cotton, the world market price shall be determined for a product delivered to Piraeus, of grade 5 as defined in Greece and having fibres 28 mm long. As regards cotton seed, the world market price shall be determined for a product delivered in bulk to Piraeus of sound and fair merchantable quality, containing 2 % impurities and, in a random sample of seeds, 12 % moisture and 17 % oil. Where the offers and quotations recorded do not satisfy the requirements referred to in the preceding subparagraphs, the necessary adjustments shall be made. 4. If there are no suitable offers or quotations for determining the world market price for cotton seed, this price shall be established on the basis of the value of the products obtained from the processing of those seeds, less the cost of crushing. 5. Where the world market price for cotton seed cannot be determined in accordance with the preceding paragraphs, this price shall be established on the basis of the most recent price determined, adjusted as appropriate to take account of trends in the prices of competing products. Article 5 1. Without prejudice to Article 7 (2), when the world market price determined in accordance with Article 3 is below the guide price, aid equal to the difference between these two prices shall be granted for unginned cotton harvested in the Community. 2. Without prejudice to Article 8 (1), the amount of aid to be paid shall be the amount applicable on the day when the application for aid is made. Applications for aid in respect of a given marketing year shall be submitted prior to a date to be determined for the marketing year in question. 3. Without prejudice to Article 8 (1), entitlement to the aid shall be acquired at the time when the cotton is ginned. (1) OJ No L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13. (2) OJ No L 367, 31.12.1980, p. 87. The aid may, however, be paid in advance when the unginned cotton enters the cotton ginning undertaking, provided that an adequate guarantee is provided. 4. The aid shall be paid by the producer Member States on whose territory ginning takes place. 5. The aid shall be paid for the quantity of unginned cotton which enters the cotton ginning undertaking. In order to determine this quantity the cotton shall be weighed and samples taken when it enters the cotton ginning undertaking. The quantity eligible for aid shall be calculated on the basis of the weight, the latter being adjusted for any difference between the percentages of moisture content and of impurities recorded and the percentages in relation to which the guide price is fixed. Article 6 Aid shall be granted only to cotton ginning undertakings which apply for it and which: 1. have submitted either: (a) a contract stipulating payment to the producer of a price at least equal to the minimum price referred to in Article 9 and containing a clause specifying that in the event of application of Article 7 (2) the agreed price will be reduced by the amount by which the aid is reduced following application of that Article; (b) where the undertaking gins cotton on behalf of an individual producer or a producer who is a member of that undertaking, a statement giving details of the conditions on which the ginning is carried out and how the aid is passed on to producers; 2. keep stock accounts, with a view to enabling entitlement to the aid to be checked, which satisfy requirements to be laid down; 3. provide the other supporting documents needed for checking entitlement to the aid; 4. furnish proof that the cotton delivered under the contract or under the statement referred to in point 1 (b) has been the subject of the declaration of area sown referred to in Article 8 (1). Article 7 1. As early as possible and in any event not later than the end of the third month following the final date for lodging aid applications, the quantity actually produced in each marketing year shall be determined according to the procedure referred to in Article 11 (1), account being taken, in particular, of the quantities in respect of which aid has been requested. 2. If the quantity actually produced exceeds the quantity in respect of which aid is granted in full, the amount of aid to be paid shall be determined using the following formula: PIC FILE= "T where: A1 = amount of aid applicable on the day when the application was made, PM = quantity fixed by the Council in respect of the marketing year, PE = actual Community production, A2 = aid to be paid. Article 8 1. Before the beginning of each marketing year, the percentage of aid paid by Member States pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 5 (3) shall be laid down in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 11 (1) taking into account crop estimates, until such time as the quantity actually produced is determined. In order to draw up these estimates, a system for the declaration of area sown shall be established. 2. Any aid outstanding shall be paid after the quantity actually produced has been determined. Article 9 1. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall each year fix a minimum price for unginned cotton at the same time as the guide price. 2. The minimum price shall be fixed for the quality to which the guide price relates, and shall apply at the farm gate. This price shall be fixed at a level enabling producers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price, account being taken of: - market fluctuations, - the cost of transporting the unginned cotton from the production areas to the ginning areas. 3. The minimum price shall be adjusted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11 (1), account being taken of any difference in quality in relation to the standard quality. Article 10 The producer Member States shall set up a system of controls to: - ascertain the quantity of unginned Community cotton which has entered each cotton ginning undertaking, - ascertain the quantity of unginned Community cotton which has been ginned, - ensure that the minimum price is complied with. Article 11 1. Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70. 2. If it proves necessary to introduce transitional measures in order to facilitate the transition from the previous system to the system set up by this Regulation, such measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph 1. They shall apply until the end of the 1981/82 marketing year at the latest. Article 12 The provisions of the Regulations relating to the value of the unit of account and the exchange rates to be applied in connection with the common agricultural policy, and those of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 shall apply by analogy to the matters dealt with in this Regulation. Article 13 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 August 1981. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 27 July 1981.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 26 June 2006 on the allocation to the United Kingdom of additional fishing days within ICES division VIIe (notified under document number C(2006) 2438) (Only the English text is authentic) (2006/461/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of stocks, applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels in waters where catch limitations are required (1), and in particular point 9 of Annex IIC, Whereas: (1) Point 7 of Annex IIC to Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 specifies the maximum number of days (216) on which Community vessels of length overall equal to or greater than 10 meters carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm or static nets with mesh size less than 220 mm may be present within ICES division VIIe from 1 February 2006 to 31 January 2007. (2) Point 9 of that Annex enables the Commission to allocate an additional number of fishing days on which a vessel may be present within that area when carrying on board such beam trawls or static nets, on the basis of permanent cessations of fishing activities that have taken place since 1 of January 2004. (3) The United Kingdom has submitted data demonstrating a reduction in 2006 of 5 % in the fleet capacity of vessels present in the area and carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm. (4) In view of the data submitted, 12 additional days at sea should be allocated to United Kingdom for the period between 1 February 2006 and 31 January 2007 for vessels carrying on board such beam trawls. (5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The maximum number of days a fishing vessel flying the flag of the United Kingdom and carrying on board beam trawls of mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm may be present in ICES division VIIe, as laid down in table I of Annex IIC to Regulation (EC) No 51/2006, shall be amended to 228 days per year. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Done at Brussels, 26 June 2006.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 499/2007 of 7 May 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 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 the Annex thereto. (2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 May 2007. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 7 May 2007.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 18 January 2000 amending Decision 96/627/EC implementing Article 2 of Council Directive 77/311/EEC on the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (notified under document number C(1999) 3546) (Text with EEA relevance) (2000/63/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 77/311/EEC of 29 March 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors(1), as last amended by Directive 97/54/EC(2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, and in particular Article 2 thereof, Whereas: (1) It has proved technically impossible in the case of virtually all tractors without cabs to meet the expiry date for the transitional period laid down by Commission Decision 96/627/EC(3). It is necessary in those circumstances to postpone the end of the transitional period laid down by that Decision for those vehicles. (2) The mesures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion delivered by the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in agricultural or forestry tractors, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Article 1 of Decision 96/627/EC is replaced by the following: "Article 1 The transitional period referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 77/311/EEC shall expire on: - 1 October 2001 for all new types of tractor, - 1 October 2003 for all new tractors." Article 2 Member States shall adopt the provisions necessary to comply with this Decision by 30 September 2001 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 18 January 2000.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3303/87 of 3 November 1987 re-establishing the levying of customs duties applicable to third countries on certain products originating in Yugoslavia THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1), and in particular Protocol 1 thereto, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4054/86 of 22 December 1986 establishing ceilings and Community supervision for imports of certain goods originating in Yugoslavia (1987) (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof, Whereas Article 1 of the abovementioned Protocol provides that the products listed below, imported under reduced duty rates according to Article 18 of the Cooperation Agreement are subject to the annual ceiling indicated below, above which the customs duties applicable to third countries may be re-established: (tonnes) 1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // CCT heading No // Description // Ceiling // // // // // 04.0080 // 78.01 // Unwrought lead (including argentiferous lead), lead waste and scrap: // 1 418 // // // A. Unwrought: // // // // II. Other // // // // // Whereas imports into the Community of those products, originating in Yugoslavia, have reached that ceiling; whereas the situation on the Community market requires that customs duties applicable to third countries on the products in question be re-established, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 From 7 November to 31 December 1987, the levying of customs duties applicable to third countries shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products: 1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // CCT heading No // Description // Origin // // // // // 04.0080 // 78.01 // Unwrought lead (including argentiferous lead), lead waste and scrap: // Yugoslavia // // // A. Unwrought: // // // // II. Other // // // // 1986, p. 35. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 November 1987.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1215/2009 of 30 November 2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process (codified version) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas: (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of 18 September 2000 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process, amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/98, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1763/1999 and (EC) No 6/2000 (1), has been substantially amended several times (2). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified. (2) At its meeting in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000, the European Council concluded that Stabilisation and Association Agreements with Western Balkan countries should be preceded by asymmetrical trade liberalisation. (3) A continued Community market opening to imports from the Western Balkan countries is expected to contribute to the process of political and economic stabilisation in the region while not creating negative effects for the Community. (4) It is, therefore, appropriate further to improve the Community’s autonomous trade preferences by removing all remaining tariff ceilings for industrial products and by further improving access to the Community market for agricultural and fishery products, including processed products. (5) These measures are proposed as part of the EU Stabilisation and Association process, in a response to the specific situation in the Western Balkans. They will not constitute a precedent for Community trade policy with other third countries. (6) In accordance with the EU Stabilisation and Association process, based on the earlier Regional Approach and the Council Conclusions of 29 April 1997, the development of bilateral relations between the European Union and the Western Balkan countries is subject to certain conditions. The granting of autonomous trade preferences is linked to respect for fundamental principles of democracy and human rights and to the readiness of the countries concerned to develop economic relations between themselves. The granting of improved autonomous trade preferences in favour of countries participating in the EU Stabilisation and Association process should be linked to their readiness to engage in effective economic reforms and in regional cooperation, in particular through the establishment of free trade areas in accordance with relevant GATT/WTO standards. In addition, entitlement to benefit from autonomous trade preferences is conditional on the involvement of the beneficiaries in effective administrative cooperation with the Community in order to prevent any risk of fraud. (7) Trade preferences can only be granted to countries or territories possessing a customs administration. (8) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo, as defined by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) subject to international civil administration by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) (hereinafter referred to as Kosovo), fulfil these conditions, and similar trade preferences should be granted to all of them in order to avoid discrimination within the region. (9) The trade measures provided for in this Regulation should take into account that Serbia and Kosovo each constitute a separate customs territory. (10) The Community has concluded an agreement on trade in textile products with Serbia (3). (11) Albania, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro should remain beneficiaries of this Regulation only in so far as this Regulation provides for concessions which are more favourable than the concessions existing under the contractual regimes between the Community and those countries. (12) For the purposes of certification of origin and administrative cooperation procedures, the relevant provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (4) should be applied. (13) For the sake of rationalisation and simplification, it is appropriate to provide that the Commission may, after consulting the Customs Code Committee and without prejudice to the specific procedures provided for in this Regulation, make any necessary changes and technical amendments necessary to this Regulation. (14) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (5). (15) The import arrangements provided for by this Regulation should be renewed on the basis of the conditions established by the Council and in the light of the experience gained in granting these arrangements under this Regulation. It is appropriate to limit the duration of the arrangements to 31 December 2010, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Preferential arrangements 1. Subject to the special provisions laid down in Article 3, products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo, other than those of headings 0102, 0201, 0202, 0301, 0302, 0303, 0304, 0305, 1604, 1701, 1702 and 2204 of the Combined Nomenclature, shall be admitted for import into the Community without quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect and with exemption from customs duties and charges having equivalent effect. 2. Imports of sugar products under headings 1701 and 1702 of the Combined Nomenclature originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo shall benefit from concessions provided for in Article 3. 3. Products originating in Albania, in Croatia, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or in Montenegro shall continue to benefit from the provisions of this Regulation where so indicated or from any measures provided for in this Regulation which are more favourable than the trade concessions provided for in the framework of bilateral agreements between the Community and these countries. Article 2 Conditions for entitlement to the preferential arrangements 1. Entitlement to benefit from the preferential arrangements introduced by Article 1 shall be subject to the following: (a) compliance with the definition of ‘originating products’ provided for in Part I, Title IV, Chapter 2, Section 1, Subsection 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93; (b) the abstention of the countries and territories referred to in Article 1 from introducing new duties or charges having equivalent effect and new quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect in respect of imports originating in the Community or from increasing existing levels of duties or charges or from introducing any other restrictions from 30 September 2000; and (c) the involvement of beneficiaries in effective administrative cooperation with the Community in order to prevent any risk of fraud. 2. Without prejudice to the conditions provided for in paragraph 1, entitlement to benefit from the preferential arrangements introduced by Article 1 shall be subject to the readiness of the beneficiary countries to engage in effective economic reforms and in regional cooperation with other countries concerned by the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process, in particular through the establishment of free trade areas in conformity with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and other relevant WTO provisions. In the event of non-compliance in that respect, the Council may take the appropriate measures by a qualified majority vote, on the basis of a Commission proposal. Article 3 Agricultural products - tariff quotas 1. For certain fishery products and for wine, as listed in Annex I, originating in the countries and territories referred to in Article 1, the customs duties applicable to imports into the Community shall be suspended during the periods, at the levels, within the limits of the Community tariff quotas and under the conditions indicated for each product and origin set out in that Annex. 2. The customs duties applicable to imports into the Community of ‘baby-beef’ products defined in Annex II and originating in the countries and territories referred to in Article 1(1) shall be 20 % of the ad valorem duty and 20 % of the specific duty as laid down in the Common Customs Tariff, within the limit of an annual tariff quota of 11 475 tonnes expressed in carcass weight. The volume of the annual tariff quota of 11 475 tonnes shall be distributed among the beneficiary countries and territories as follows: (a) 1 500 tonnes (carcass weight) for ‘baby-beef’ products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina; (b) 9 175 tonnes (carcass weight) for ‘baby-beef’ products originating in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo. Imports into the Community of ‘baby-beef’ products defined in Annex II and originating in Albania shall not benefit from a tariff concession. Any request for import within these quotas shall be accompanied by an authenticity certificate issued by the competent authorities of the exporting country and attesting that the goods originate in the country or territory concerned and correspond to the definition in Annex II to this Regulation. This certificate shall be drawn up by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (6). 3. Imports of sugar products under headings 1701 and 1702 of the Combined Nomenclature originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo shall be subject to the following annual duty-free tariff quotas: (a) 12 000 tonnes (net weight) for sugar products originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina; (b) 180 000 tonnes (net weight) for sugar products originating in the customs territories of Serbia or Kosovo. 4. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Regulation, and in particular Article 10, given the particular sensitivity of the agricultural and fishery markets, where imports of agricultural and fishery products cause serious disturbance to the Community markets and their regulatory mechanisms, the Commission may take the appropriate measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 8(2). Article 4 Implementation of tariff quotas for ‘baby beef’ and sugar The detailed rules for implementing the tariff quota for ‘baby-beef’ products shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. The detailed rules for implementing the tariff quota for sugar products under heading Nos 1701 and 1702 of the Combined Nomenclature shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 195(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Article 5 Administration of tariff quotas The tariff quotas referred to in Article 3(1) of this Regulation shall be administered by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. Communication for that purpose between the Member States and the Commission shall be effected, as far as possible, by telematic link. Article 6 Access to tariff quotas Each Member State shall ensure that importers have equal and uninterrupted access to the tariff quotas for as long as the balance of the relevant quota volume so permits. Article 7 Conferment of powers The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 8(2), adopt the provisions necessary for the application of this Regulation, other than those provided for in Article 4, in particular: (a) amendments and technical adjustments necessary following amendments to the Combined Nomenclature codes and to the TARIC subdivisions; (b) necessary adjustments following the conclusion of other agreements between the Community and the countries and territories referred to in Article 1. Article 8 Committee 1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Customs Code Committee established by Article 247a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (7) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Committee’). 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply. The period referred to in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at one month. Article 9 Cooperation Member States and the Commission shall cooperate closely to ensure that this Regulation, and in particular the provisions set out in Article 10(1), are complied with. Article 10 Temporary suspension 1. Where the Commission finds that there is sufficient evidence of fraud or failure to provide administrative cooperation as required for the verification of evidence of origin, or that there is a massive increase of exports into the Community above the level of normal production and export capacity or a failure of compliance with the provisions of Article 2(1) by countries and territories referred to in Article 1, it may take measures to suspend in whole or in part the arrangements provided for in this Regulation for a period of three months, provided that it has first: (a) informed the Committee; (b) called on the Member States to take such precautionary measures as are necessary in order to safeguard the Community’s financial interests and/or to secure compliance by the beneficiary countries and territories with Article 2(1); (c) published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union stating that there are grounds for reasonable doubts about the application of the preferential arrangements and/or compliance with Article 2(1) by the beneficiary country or territory concerned which may call into question its right to continue enjoying the benefits granted by this Regulation. 2. A Member State may refer the Commission decision to the Council within 10 days. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may take a different decision within 30 days. 3. On conclusion of the period of suspension, the Commission shall decide either to terminate the provisional suspension measure following consultation of the Committee or to extend the suspension measure in accordance with paragraph 1. Article 11 Repeal Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 is repealed. References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IV. Article 12 Entry into force and application This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply until 31 December 2010. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1287/2001 of 28 June 2001 on the issuing of system B export licences for fruit and vegetables THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/96 of 14 November 1996 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 298/2000(2), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof, Whereas: (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 862/2001(3) fixed the indicative quantities laid down for the issue of export licences other than those requested in the context of food aid. (2) In the light of information now available to the Commission, the indicative quantities have been exceeded in the case of lemons and apples. (3) Those overruns are without prejudice to compliance with the limits resulting from the agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty. The rate of refund for all products covered by licences applied for under system B from 14 May to 13 June 2001 should be the indicative rate, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The percentages for the issuing of system B export licences, as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2190/96, and applied for between 14 May and 13 June 2001, by which the quantities applied for and the rates of refund applicable must be multiplied, are as fixed in the Annex hereto. The above subparagraph does not apply to licences applied for in connection with food-aid operations as provided for in Article 10(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 June 2001. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 28 June 2001.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 29 November 1996 amending Decisions 93/24/EEC and 93/244/EEC and concerning additional guarantees relating to Aujeszky's disease for pigs destined to Sweden (Text with EEA relevance) (96/725/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC (1) of 26 June 1964, on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, as last amended by Directive 95/25/EC (2), and in particular Article 9 (3) and Article 10 (2) thereof, Whereas Sweden considers that its territory is free from Aujeszky's disease and has submitted supporting documentation to the Commission as provided for in Article 10 of Directive 64/432/EEC; Whereas an eradication programme was undertaken in these regions for Aujeszky's disease; Whereas Commission Decision 93/244/EEC (3) as last amended by Decision 96/590/EC (4) lays down additional guarantees relating to Aujeszky's disease for pigs destined to certain parts of the territory of the Community where an eradication programme has been approved and lists those regions in Annex I; Whereas the programme is regarded to have been successful in eradicating this disease from Sweden; whereas it is therefore appropriate to remove these regions from the list of regions in Annex I of Decision 93/244/EEC; Whereas the authorities of Sweden apply for national movement of pigs rules at least equivalent to those provided by the present decision; Whereas these additional guarantees must not be requested from Member States or regions of Member States which are themselves regarded as free from Aujeszky's disease; Whereas Commission Decision 93/24/EEC (5), as last amended by Decision 96/590/EC, lays down additional guarantees relating to Aujeszky's disease for pigs destined to Member States or regions free of the disease and lists those regions in Annex I; Whereas these parts of Sweden which are free of the disease should be added to Annex I of Decision 93/24/EEC; Whereas the measures provided for in this decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 1. In Annex I of Decision 93/244/EEC, the words 'Sweden: all regions` are deleted. 2. The following is added to Annex I of Decision 93/24/EEC: 'Sweden: all regions`. Article 2 This Decision shall apply from 1 December 1996. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 29 November 1996.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2896/88 of 20 September 1988 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on track suits of knitted or crocheted fabric, products of category 73 (order No 40.0730), originating in Thailand and the Philippines, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 apply THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 of 3 December 1987 concerning the administration of the generalized tariff preferences applicable for 1988 to textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof, Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3782/87 (2) to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 7 of Annex I or II thereto, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes; whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3783/87 provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached at Community level; Whereas, in respect of track suits of knitted or crocheted fabric, products of category 73 (order No 40.0730), the relevant ceiling amounts to 114 000 and 97 000 pieces respectively; Whereas on 13 September 1988 imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in Thailand and the Philippines, countries covered by preferential tariff arrangements, reached and were charged against that ceiling; Whereas it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties for the products in question with regard to Thailand and the Philippines, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 As from 24 September 1988, the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3782/87, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in Thailand and the Philippines: 1.2.3.4 // // // // // Order No // Category // CN code // Description // // // // // // // // // 40.0730 // 73 (1 000 pieces) // 6112 11 00 6112 12 00 6112 19 00 // Track suits of knitted or crocheted fabric, of wool, of cotton or of man-made textile fibres // // // // Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 20 September 1988.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 200/91 of 28 January 1991 on the supply of refined rape seed oil as food aid THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 of 22 December 1986 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1930/90 (2), and in particular Article 6 (1) (c) thereof, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1420/87 of 21 May 1987 laying down implementing rules for Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (3) lays down the list of countries and organizations eligible for food-aid operations and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage; Whereas, following the taking of a number of decisions on the allocation of food aid, the Commission has allocated to certain countries and beneficiary organizations 3 507 tonnes of refined rape seed oil; Whereas it is necessary to provide for the carrying-out of this measure in accordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for the mobilization in the Community of products to be supplied as Community food aid (4); whereas it is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply and the procedure to be followed to determine the resultant costs, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Refined rape seed oil shall be mobilized in the Community as Community food aid for supply to the recipients listed in the Annexes, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 and under the conditions set out in the Annexes. Supplies shall be awarded by the tendering procedure. The successful tenderer is deemed to have noted and accepted all the general and specific conditions applicable. Any other condition or reservation included in his tender is deemed unwritten. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 28 January 1991.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 27 February 1990 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation (90/117/Euratom) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof, Whereas the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation was signed on 18 December 1989; Whereas by Decision of 26 February 1990 the Council approved the said Agreement for the purposes of conclusion by the Commission on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community; Whereas the said Agreement should be concluded on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community, HAD DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The Agreement (1) between the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade and commercial and economic cooperation is hereby concluded on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community. Article 2 The President of the Commission shall give the notification provided for in Article 25 of the Agreement on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community. Done at Brussels, 27 February 1990.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 678/1999 of 26 March 1999 laying down detailed rules governing the grant of private storage aid for Pecorino Romano cheese THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Articles 9(3) and 28 thereof, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 508/71 of 8 March 1971 laying down general rules on private storage aid for long-keeping cheeses (3) permits the granting of private storage aid for sheep's milk cheeses requiring at least six months for maturing where a serious market imbalance could be eliminated or reduced by seasonal storage; Whereas the seasonal nature of Pecorino Romano cheese production results in the building up of stocks which are difficult to sell and which risk causing a lowering of prices; whereas seasonal storage should therefore be introduced for the quantities to improve the situation and allow producers time to find outlets for their cheese; Whereas the detailed rules of this measure should determine the maximum quantity to benefit from it as well as the duration of the contracts in relation to the real requirements of the market and the keeping qualities of the cheeses in question; whereas it is necessary to specify the terms of the storage contract so as to enable the identification of the cheese and to maintain checks on the stock in respect of which aid is granted; whereas the aid should be fixed taking into account storage costs and the foreseeable trend of market prices; Whereas Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 of 30 June 1993 fixing the operative events for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to milk and milk products (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 569/1999 (5), fixes the conversion rate to be applied in the framework of private storage aid schemes in the milk products sector; Whereas experience shows that provisions on checks should be laid down, particularly as regards the documents to be submitted and checks to be made on the spot; whereas therefore, it should be provided that Member States require the costs of checks be fully or partly borne by the contractor; Whereas it is appropriate to guarantee the continuation of the storage operations in question; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Aid shall be granted in respect of the private storage of 15 000 tonnes of Pecorino Romano cheese manufactured in the Community and satisfying the requirements of Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 1. The intervention agency shall conclude storage contracts only when the following conditions are met: (a) the quantity of cheese to which the contract relates is not less than 2 tonnes; (b) the cheese was manufactured at least 90 days before the date specified in the contract as being the date of commencement of storage, and after 1 October 1998; (c) the cheese has undergone tests which show that it meets the condition laid down in (b) and that it is of first quality; (d) the storer undertakes: - not, during the term of the contract, to alter the composition of the batch which is the subject of the contract without authorisation from the intervention agency. If the condition concerning the minimum quantity fixed for each batch continues to be met, the intervention agency may authorise an alteration which is limited to the removal or replacement of cheeses which are found to have deteriorated to such an extent that they can no longer be stored. In the event of release from store of certain quantities: (i) if the aforesaid quantities are replaced with the authorisation of the intervention agency, the contract is deemed not to have undergone any alteration; (ii) if the aforesaid quantities are not replaced, the contract is deemed to have been concluded ab initio for the quantity permanently retained. Any supervisory costs arising from an alteration shall be met by the storer, - to keep stock accounts and to inform the intervention agency each week of the quantity of cheese put into storage during the previous week and of any planned withdrawals. 2. The storage contract shall be concluded: (a) in writing, stating the date when storage covered by the contract begins; this may not be earlier than the day following that on which the operations connected with putting the batch of cheese covered by the contract into storage were completed; (b) after completion of the operations connected with putting the batch of cheese covered by the contract into storage and at the latest 40 days after the date on which the storage covered by the contract begins. Article 3 1. Aid shall be granted only for cheese put into storage during the period 15 April to 31 December 1999. 2. No aid shall be granted in respect of storage under contract for less than 60 days. 3. The aid payable may not exceed an amount corresponding to 180 days storage under contract terminating before 31 March 2000. By way of derogation from the first indent of Article 2(1)(d), when the period of 60 days specified in paragraph 2 has elapsed, the storer may remove all or part of the batch under contract. The minimum quantity that may be removed shall be 500 kilograms. The Member States may, however, increase this quantity to 2 tonnes. The date of the start of operations to remove cheese covered by the contract shall not be included in the period of storage under contract. Article 4 1. The aid shall be as follows: (a) EUR 100 per tonne for the fixed costs; (b) EUR 0,35 per tonne per day of storage under contract for the warehousing costs; (c) EUR 0,52 per tonne per day of storage under contract for the financial costs. 2. Aid shall be paid not later than 90 days from the last day of storage under contract. Article 5 1. The Member States shall ensure that the conditions granting entitlement to payment of the aid are fulfilled. 2. The contractor shall make available to the national authorities responsible for verifying execution of the measure any documentation permitting in particular the following particulars of products placed in private storage to be verified: (a) ownership at the time of entry into storage; (b) the origin and date of manufacture of the cheeses; (c) the date of entry into storage; (d) presence in the store; (e) the date of removal from storage. 3. The contractor or, where applicable, the operator of the store shall keep stock accounts available at the store, covering: (a) identification, by contract number, of the products placed in private storage; (b) the dates of entry into and removal from storage; (c) the number of cheeses and their weight shown for each lot; (d) the location of the products in the store. 4. Products stored must be easily identifiable and must be identified individually by contract. A special mark shall be affixed to cheese covered by contract. 5. Without prejudice to Article 2(1)(d), on entry into storage, the competent bodies shall conduct checks in particular to ensure that products stored are eligible, for the aid and to prevent any possibility of substitution of products during storage under contract. 6. The national authorities responsible for controls shall undertake: (a) an unannounced check to see that the products are present in the store. The sample concerned must be representative and must correspond to at least 10 % of the overall quantity under contract for a private storage aid measure. Such checks must include, in addition to an examination of the accounts referred to in paragraph 3, a physical check of the weight and type of product and their identification. Such physical checks must relate to at least 5 % of the quantity subject to the unannounced check; (b) a check to see that the products are present at the end of the storage period under contract. 7. Checks conducted pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 must be the subject of a report stating: - the date of the check, - its duration, - the operations conducted. The report on checks must be signed by the official responsible and countersigned by the contractor or, where applicable, by the store operator. 8. In the case of irregularities affecting at least 5 % of the quantities of products subject to the checks the latter shall be extended to a larger sample to be determined by the competent body. The Member States shall notify such cases to the Commission within four weeks. 9. The Member States may provide that the costs of checks will be borne partly or fully by the contractor. Article 6 Member States shall communicate to the Commission before 15 December 1999. (a) the quantity of cheese for which storage contracts have been concluded; (b) any quantities in respect of which the authorisation referred to in Article 2(1)(d) has been given. Article 7 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 15 April 1999. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 26 March 1999.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3398/84 of 3 December 1984 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2213/83 as regards the quality standards for onions THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1332/84 (2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) thereof, Whereas the quality standards for onions are laid down in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2213/83 (3); Whereas difficulties have arisen over the interpretation of certain quality specifications; whereas the development of harvesting and packaging methods makes it impossible to observe completely the standards concerning the integrity of the outer skins protecting the bulb as they have been laid down; whereas the quality standards should take this into account; whereas, moreover, sufficient experience should be gained before the standards are amended permanently; whereas temporary derogations from the quality standards for onions should be allowed at this point without the quality of the product being thereby affected; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The following derogations from Title II 'Provisions concerning quality' of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2213/83 shall apply: 1. Under A 'Minimum requirements', the first indent is replaced by: 'intact', 2. Under B 'Classification': (a) in (i) 'Class I', the last paragraph is replaced by the following: 'The following are, however, permitted: - light staining which does not affect the last dried skin protecting the flesh, provided it does not cover more than one-fifth of the surface of the bulb; - small cracks in the outer skins and the absence of part of the outer skins provided that the flesh is protected'. (b) in (ii) 'Class II', the second sentence of the last paragraph is replaced by the following: 'The following, however, are permitted: - staining which does not affect the last dried skin protecting the flesh provided it does not cover more than half the surface of the bulb, - cracks in the outer skins and the absence of a part of the outer skins from not more than one-third of the surface of the bulb, provided the flesh remains intact.' (c) in (iii) 'Class III', the following indent is added: '- staining which does not affect the last dried skin protecting the flesh. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply until 30 June 1985. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 December 1984.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 126/2007 of 12 February 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 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 the Annex thereto. (2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 February 2007. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 12 February 2007.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Decision of 27 November 2002 on the aid scheme implemented by Germany: "Thuringia working capital programme" (notified under document number C(2003) 4359) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the German text is authentic) (2003/469/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE (1) The Land of Thuringia's rules governing its working capital programme (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"), adopted on 20 July 1993, entered into force in 1993(1). The Thuringian Land authorities took the view that the rules complied with the de minimis provisions introduced in the Community's 1992 Guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises(2) (hereinafter referred to as "the SME Guidelines") and so did not notify them under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. (2) Following a press article on the loan programme, under which firms without sufficient bank security apparently obtained loans on favourable conditions in order to finance inventories, the Commission asked Germany, by letter DG IV/D3761 of 2 May 1994, for information to enable it to assess the compatibility of the rules with the common market. By letter dated 31 May 1994, Germany provided the following information: the Thuringia working capital programme of 20 July 1993 applied to small and medium-sized enterprises (as defined in the Community's 1992 SME Guidelines) in a sound economic position which, because of their small size, lack of bank security and the general situation on the capital market, would have had difficulty in obtaining outside resources. Aid for firms in difficulty was not possible, but such firms could apply for aid under other approved programmes. The rules were moreover designed as a de minimis programme in line with the de minimis provisions of the Community's 1992 SME Guidelines. (3) Germany agreed with the assessment by the Thuringian authorities that the rules were not subject to the notification requirement under Article 88(3). (4) In response to a request for information dated 29 May 1995, Germany sent the Commission, by letter of 27 June 1995, a copy of the rules governing the working capital programme. (5) In the course of the proceedings in case C 85/98 (ex NN 106/98 - Incorrect application of the de minimis rules under the Thuringia consolidation programme of 20 July 1993), Germany confirmed by letter dated 8 June 1998 that the rules at issue in these proceedings had expired on 16 January 1996. By letter dated 7 December 1998, Germany provided information on the implementation of the rules and on the recipient firms from which the Commission concluded that firms in sensitive sectors (products in Annex I to the EC Treaty) had received aid. The information also showed that firms in difficulty which had that same year or the previous year been assisted under approved programmes for firms in difficulty had received loans under the rules. This supposition was confirmed by a letter sent by Germany on 29 January 1999 from which it was also apparent that some of the beneficiaries under the rules had also received aid under the consolidation programme of 20 July 1993, whose incorrect application was the subject of proceedings in case C 85/98. (6) By letter dated 18 May 1999 (ref. SG(99) D/3539), the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid scheme. (7) The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(3). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the scheme but did not receive any comments from interested parties. Germany's comments were sent by letters dated 24 June and 19 August 1999. (8) Germany submitted its final comments by letter on 26 November 2001. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE 2.1. Title and legal basis (9) The aid is granted by the public-sector Thüringer Aufbaubank (Thuringia Reconstruction Bank), acting on behalf of the Thuringia Ministry for Economic Affairs and Transport on the basis of Sections 23, 44 and 44a of the Land Budget Order, in accordance with the rules on the Thuringia working capital programme. 2.2. Recipients (10) The rules are directed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) defined according to the "turnover" and "employees" criteria, but not the "independence" criterion, set out in the SME Guidelines, as well as at start-ups, management buy-outs, management buy-ins and privatisations, with priority given to consolidation projects. The eligibility of the foodstuffs industry, which can cover both the activities specified in Annex I to the EC Treaty and other activities, is explicitly mentioned in point 3 ("Aid recipients") of the rules. The other sensitive sectors (steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, the motor industry, agriculture, fisheries, transport and the coal industry) are not explicitly excluded. In exceptional cases (by decision of the relevant minister), aid may also be granted to firms which exceed the turnover and employee thresholds laid down in the SME Guidelines. 2.3. Duration (11) The rules governing the Thuringia working capital programme entered into force on 20 July 1993 for an unlimited period and were replaced on 16 January 1996 by the Thuringia loan programme for small and medium-sized enterprises. 2.4. Objective (12) The rules are aimed at firms which neither have sufficient bank security nor are in a position to pay the high interest rates charged on short-term loans. The objective is to make available to such firms soft loans for the financing of working capital. Point 1 of the rules ("Objective") stipulates that support is to be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises to set up business or to safeguard their activities, in particular in order to avert risks to their operation or existing jobs. (13) The aid is granted by the public-sector Thüringer Aufbaubank in the form of soft loans which are paid via the firm's main bank at the latter's primary risk. The main bank may receive a guarantee (release from liability) of 60 % of the amount of the loan, with no fee being provided for in the rules. The Thüringer Aufbaubank and the main bank receive a single processing fee of 0,1 % of the amount of the loan. (14) Rescheduling at the expense of the Thüringer Aufbaubank is ruled out. (15) The loans are granted at an interest rate of between 5 % and 8 % for a renewable period of three years. The relevant Land minister can approve other implementing provisions. 2.5. Intensity (16) Point 5 of the rules ("Nature, scope and amount of the payment") refers expressly to the programme's de minimis nature and to the de minimis provisions of the 1992 Community SME Guidelines. (17) Under the rules, the aid element of the soft loan is calculated on the basis of the difference between the effective interest rate and the applicable reference rate. No direct ceiling is laid down in respect of the loan, but the amount of aid that a firm can receive for the same purpose within a period of 36 months (i.e. the aid element resulting from the soft loan) may not exceed the de minimis thresholds laid down in the de minimis provisions of the 1992 SME Guidelines(4). The aid element linked to the guarantee was not taken into account. (18) According to the documents submitted by Germany during the preliminary proceedings, 460 loans amounting to a total of DEM 202 million were granted and disbursed between 1993 and 1996; some 20 of them went to the foodstuffs industry. In at least two cases, firms which had that year or the previous year received aid under approved schemes for firms in difficulty received such loans (Thuro Back Südthüringer Backwaren and Bergner & Weiser GmbH). 2.6. Cumulation (19) The rules do not contain any provisions on cumulation. 2.7. Grounds for initiating the procedure (20) The Commission initiated the procedure in respect of the scheme's application to firms operating in the sensitive sectors and to firms in difficulty. It raised no objections to the scheme's application to viable firms outside the sensitive sectors. (21) The Commission's grounds were as follows. (22) Since the sensitive sectors were not excluded from the scheme, this constituted incorrect application of the de minimis provisions of the 1992 Community Guidelines. According to point 3.2 of those Guidelines, they do not apply to aid for firms in the sectors subject to special rules. Since the rules were applied to one of these sectors, they must be regarded as non-notified aid. (23) Given the specific characteristics of the sensitive sectors, the measures concerned constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. The aid made it possible for firms which could not easily access the capital market to obtain loans in order to finance their working capital on favourable terms and safeguard or even extend their activities. In the Commission's view, therefore, the measures were liable to affect competition. (24) In so far as loans were granted to economically viable firms in the sensitive sectors, the Commission had doubts about the working capital programme's compatibility with the relevant provisions on regional aid. (25) The loans for economically viable firms in the sensitive sectors constituted operating aid, which the Commission had to assess in the light of the regional aid provisions applicable. In particular, in accordance with the Commission's established practice, such aid had to meet the following criteria: (a) it had to be limited in time and degressive; (b) it had to be granted only in regions covered by Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty; (c) the sensitive sectors had to be excluded. (26) In its decision initiating the procedure, the Commission concluded that the scheme was not degressive and did not exclude the sensitive sectors. (27) The information from Germany showed that in at least two cases the rules were applied to firms in difficulty as defined in the 1994 Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(5) (hereinafter referred to as the "1994 Guidelines"). The wording of the rules did not exclude firms in difficulty from its scope. The Commission therefore took the view that the scheme also applied in part to firms in difficulty. (28) The soft loans backed by a guarantee from the Thüringer Aufbaubank and granted to firms in difficulty could have exceeded the de minimis threshold. The aid element associated with the guarantee and the special difficulties of the recipient firms should have been taken into account in the calculation of the de minimis threshold. The aid element of the guarantee must reflect the specific risk attached to a firm in difficulty and can be as high as the full amount of the loan secured. (29) The application of the rules to firms in difficulty thus took insufficient account of the de minimis provisions. It was only where the amount from the loan and other aid taken into account under the provisions on cumulation did not exceed the de minimis threshold that this was not the case. In the form in which it was applied, however, the Thuringia working capital programme had to be regarded as a non-notified aid scheme. (30) The loans made financial resources available to the firms, allowing them to avoid being forced out of the market. If a firm had been forced out of the market, either existing overcapacities would have been reduced or the market shares made available would have been acquired by competitors, which could in either case have improved their profitability. The rules did not exclude the granting of loans to firms engaged in intra-Community trade. It therefore had to be assumed that the working capital loans concerned by the proceedings were liable to affect trade between Member States. (31) The working capital loans provided to firms in difficulty by the Thüringer Aufbaubank thus constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and had to be assessed on the basis of the relevant guidelines. (32) In as much as the rules were concerned with the rescue of firms in difficulty, the relevant provisions made it a condition for the compatibility of rescue aid with the common market that it be granted in the form of either a State loan on market terms or a guarantee for a private loan. This condition was not met in the case in point since the loans in question were soft loans. The provisions also required individual notification of aid to large firms and firms operating in sensitive sectors. However, the scheme under examination did not rule out aid to large firms and was applied in a sensitive sector. (33) In as much as the rules were concerned with the restructuring of firms in difficulty, it must be noted that the relevant provisions (as most recently confirmed by the 1999 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(6) require the following main conditions for compatibility: (a) submission and implementation of a restructuring plan capable of restoring the long-term viability of the firm; (b) limitation of the aid to the strict minimum required to achieve this goal; (c) a significant contribution from the recipient firm and its shareholders; (d) compliance with the special rules governing the sensitive sectors, requiring in principle the notification of individual cases; (e) individual notification of aid to large firms; (f) restructuring aid to be granted only once except in unforeseen circumstances for which the firm is not responsible. (34) The rules under examination do not provide for individual notification of aid to large firms or prohibit the repeated grant of restructuring aid. 3. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY (35) In its comments, Germany put the total number of loans granted under the working capital programme at 365, amounting to a total of EUR 81,6 million. It explained the difference between this figure and the figure given in the decision initiating proceedings by the fact that the latter also included working capital loans under the 1996 Thuringia loan programme. The 1996 programme is the subject of proceedings in case C 87/98 (ex NN 137/98). (36) The information in the decision initiating proceedings regarding Thuro Back Südthüringer Backwaren GmbH and Bergner & Weiser GmbH was incorrect, according to Germany, since neither of these firms had received a working capital loan under the Thuringia working capital programme. (37) Germany took the view that the Thuringia working capital programme did not apply to firms in difficulty. While it did not explicitly exclude them and while three out of a total of 365 loans granted did go to firms in difficulty, the scheme was not open to firms in difficulty, nor was it intended to be. The Thuringia working capital programme had to be seen in an overall context together with the Thuringia consolidation programme (case C 85/98, ex NN 106/98). While the scope of the consolidation programme explicitly covered firms in difficulty, this was not the case with the Thuringia working capital programme. (38) Furthermore, the high level of own risk which the firms' main banks were facing, meant that the banks had to check the creditworthiness of the borrower and to limit the credit risk. (39) According to the information from Germany, calculation of the de minimis amount was based solely on the aid element contained in the interest-rate subsidy, calculated on the basis of the difference between the effective interest rate for the final borrower and the reference interest rate. The aid element contained in the guarantee had not been taken into account in implementing the working capital programme because, it was argued, the German authorities were not aware in the period from 1993 to early 1996 that the aid element associated with the guarantee should be taken into account. This changed only with the Commission's letter of 11 November 1998 (ref. D/54570). (40) As far as the sensitive sectors are concerned, Germany argued that aid to firms in sensitive sectors was excluded by the reference contained in point 5 of the rules governing the Thuringia working capital programme. Point 5 explicitly states that "the loans [...] are granted in accordance with the Community Guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ C 213, 19.8.1992, p. 2)". As a result of this reference, the provisions concerning sensitive sectors had been directly applicable and the granting of aid for these sectors strictly ruled out. (41) According to the information provided by Germany, no loans were granted to firms in the sensitive sectors referred to in point 1.6 of the 1992 Community Guidelines on State aid for SMEs. (42) Moreover, in Germany's view, it was only since 1998 that the special aid rules under the 1996 Guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products(7) had been applicable pursuant to Commission Decision 1999/183/EC of 20 May 1998 concerning State aid for the processing and marketing of German agricultural products which might be granted on the basis of existing regional aid schemes(8). For the period from 1993 to 1996, therefore, it considered that no special State aid rules applied. (43) Of the 365 working capital loans committed, only five had been granted to firms in the food and tobacco sector. (44) The application of the rules to non-SMEs in exceptional cases was, in Germany's view, in line with the requirements set out in the de minimis rule contained in the 1992 SME Guidelines. (45) Germany sent the Commission a table listing the working capital loans granted in the period from 1993 to 1995. The list shows that, of the 365 loans granted, firms in difficulty were involved in three cases. The table also showed that loans were granted in agriculture (a sensitive sector) in only five instances, although a letter from Germany dated 29 January 1999 showed that a total of some 20 loans were granted to firms in the foodstuffs industry. (46) It is not clear from the documents sent by Germany what criteria were used to define the sensitive sector of agriculture or a firm in difficulty. 4. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE 4.1. Existence of State aid (47) Although any financial payment to a firm alters the conditions of competition to some extent, not all aid has a perceptible impact on trade and competition between Member States. Against this background, the notification requirement under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty does not apply to aid that does not exceed an absolute maximum amount and, as de minimis aid, does not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. (48) A definition of what the Commission understood by de minimis aid was first set out in the 1992 SME Guidelines.(9) The scope of the de minimis provisions is defined at point 3.2 of the Guidelines as payments of ECU 50000 to any one firm in respect of a given broad type of expenditure (e.g. investment and training) over a three-year period. Therefore, one-off payments of aid of up to ECU 50000 in respect of a given type of expenditure and schemes under which the amount of aid that a given firm may receive in respect of a given type of expenditure over a three-year period was limited to that figure were no longer considered notifiable under Article 88(3) (formerly Article 93(3)) of the EC Treaty. However, there had to be an express condition in the grant decision or scheme that any further aid which the same firm might receive in respect of the same type of expenditure from other sources or under other schemes did not take the total aid received over the ECU 50000 limit. It was made clear in point 3.2 that the de minimis facility was not available in sensitive sectors (steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, the motor industry, agriculture, fisheries, transport and the coal industry). (49) The 1996 Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid(10) amended the de minimis provisions of the 1992 SME Guidelines. The ceiling for aid covered by the de minimis provisions was set at ECU 100000 over a three-year period beginning when the first de minimis aid was granted. This ceiling applied to all types of public assistance considered to be de minimis aid and did not affect the possibility of the recipient obtaining other aid under schemes approved by the Commission. (50) The provisions did not apply to the industries covered by the ECSC Treaty, to shipbuilding, to transport or to aid towards expenditure in connection with agriculture or fisheries. (51) Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid(11) extended the scope of the de minimis provisions, albeit still to the exclusion of aid granted to the transport sector and to activities linked to the production, processing or marketing of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty. Similarly, the Regulation does not apply to aid for export-related activities, i.e. aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to an export activity. Lastly, aid contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods is also excluded from the scope of the Regulation. (52) Article 2 of the Regulation stipulates that the total de minimis aid granted to any one enterprise must not exceed EUR 100000 over any period of three years. This ceiling applies irrespective of the form of the aid or the objective pursued. (53) Since Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 entered into force only on 2 February 2001, whereas the rules under examination applied from 20 July 1993 to 16 January 1996, the question arises whether the Commission, for the purposes of this Decision, can apply the Regulation retroactively to financial assistance paid before it entered into force or whether the de minimis provisions in the 1992 SME Guidelines in force in the relevant period should be taken into account (consecutio legis). (54) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 does not indicate whether it is applicable to the assessment of aid granted before its entry into force. However, its wording does not rule out its application to previous cases, which in any event are subject to the control mechanism under Article 3. The Commission has reached the conclusion that, given the absence of any other express provision, Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 should apply to de minimis aid granted before its entry into force. For one thing, the Regulation, in so far as it exempts a particular category of measure from the notification requirement, is a procedural regulation and should thus apply immediately to all pending proceedings. For another, the immediate application of the Regulation is in line with the underlying objectives of procedural simplification and decentralisation. Only in respect of aid not caught by the Regulation and thus not eligible for exemption on this basis will the Commission take account of the provisions that were in force when the aid was granted. Since the Regulation is, in principle, more generous than its de minimis predecessors and since the latter apply in any event to cases where the aid concerned is not exempt under the Regulation, the general legal principles of legitimate expectation and legal certainty are suitably accounted for. From an economic standpoint, the Commission takes the view that a financial measure which cannot be classed as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty under Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, in force today in an integrated market, cannot in the past have given rise to any aid in a less integrated market. It will therefore base its further assessment of the financial measures on Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, which does not rule out the possibility of the provisions in force at the time the measures were implemented being applied, provided that the measures concerned are not exempt under Regulation (EC) No 69/2001. (55) The proceedings initiated thus cover both the rules at issue and the cases of application which do not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or the other relevant de minimis provisions and the cases which do fall within the scope of the Regulation or of the other relevant de minimis provisions and in which cumulation with other aid has led to the de minimis ceiling being exceeded. (56) Aid for activities relating to the manufacture, processing or marketing of the goods listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty are excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001. (57) The Commission therefore takes the view that all the working capital loans granted to the foodstuffs industry fall outside the scope of Regulation (EC) 69/2001 or of the previous de minimis provisions in so far as they were granted for the manufacture of the goods listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and must thus be classed in the sensitive sector of agriculture. (58) Germany's argument that the special aid rules contained in the 1996 Community Guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products were applicable only as from 1998 is immaterial here since the special rules did not affect the scope of the de minimis provisions(12). (59) In the Commission's view, the residual scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or other relevant de minimis provisions might be exceeded because failure to take account of the aid element contained in the guarantee might mean that, in granting working capital loans, the ceilings laid down in Article 2 of the Regulation or in other, previously applicable de minimis provisions might be exceeded. The rules do not offer any assurance that the de minimis ceiling is complied with in every instance. There is in particular no guarantee that it was complied with where the rules were applied to firms in difficulty, involving as they do a high risk of default. (60) In the Commission's view, the beneficiaries under the rules at least included firms in difficulty. (61) For the purpose of differentiating between firms in difficulty and viable firms, the Commission included an explanation of what is meant by a firm in difficulty in point 2.1 of the 1994 Community Guidelines(13). This definition essentially confirmed the Commission's decision-making practice of the preceding years, as described in its Eighth Report on Competition Policy published in 1979 (points 227 to 229)(14). (62) The definition of a firm in difficulty, which the Commission will use here, is given in the 1994 Guidelines as a firm which is "unable to recover through its own resources or by raising the funds it needs from shareholders or borrowing. The typical symptoms are deteriorating profitability or increasing size of losses, diminishing turnover, growing inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, increasing debt, rising interest charges and low net asset value. In acute cases the company may already have become insolvent or gone into liquidation." (63) According to point 3 ("Aid recipients") of the rules, they are directed at start-ups, management buy-outs and management buy-ins and privatisations, with priority given to applications related to consolidation measures. The Commission takes the view that the inclusion of firms in need of consolidation indicates that those in need of recovery within the meaning of the definition of firms in difficulty could receive subsidised working capital loans. (64) Germany argues that the Thuringia working capital programme should be viewed in an overall context together with the Thuringia consolidation programme. While the scope of the consolidation programme explicitly covered firms in difficulty, this was not the case with the Thuringia working capital programme. In determining the substance of the rules, the wording should not be viewed in isolation, but the consolidation programme should be included in the assessment and the scope of the working capital programme determined by viewing both schemes as a whole. The Thuringia working capital programme therefore did not apply to firms in difficulty. (65) This argument is not convincing as evidence that the working capital programme was not applied to firms in difficulty. According to their wording, the specific purpose of the rules was to assist firms to set up business or to safeguard their activities, in particular in order to avert risks to their operation or existing jobs. Moreover, applications related to consolidation measures were to be given priority. (66) Germany also argues that the main bank's own risk was an incentive to it to check the creditworthiness of the borrower. (67) Although the likelihood of the recipient actually being a firm in difficulty may perhaps have been reduced by the risk which the main bank still faced, the granting of aid to firms in difficulty was by no means ruled out by the wording of the rules. The Commission also takes the view that it could be advantageous for the main bank, in particular in the case of firms in difficulty, to participate in granting loans under the rules since the granting of a working capital loan improves the overall liquidity of the recipient firm and reduces the risk of default on loans previously granted by the main bank. It may in fact make economic sense for a bank to reduce a high risk of default in respect of existing loans by acting in such a way as to ensure that new funds are made available to the firm for its restructuring. This is particularly true where the associated risk is partly assumed by the State. (68) After all, the individual lists sent by Germany of aid promised or disbursed under the rules show that firms in difficulty were assisted. Germany also conceded in its comments that firms in difficulty had been assisted under the Thuringia working capital programme. (69) The aid element of the guarantee should have been taken into account in the calculation of the aid intensity of the loans, especially bearing in mind the risk of default in the case of firms in difficulty. (70) This assessment is not affected either by Germany's statement in its comments that the German authorities, between 1993 and early 1996, did not know that the aid element associated with the guarantee and the particular risks involved in the granting of loans to firms in difficulty should have been taken into account in calculating the aid intensity. The Commission cannot accept this argument since back in 1989 it sent a letter to Member States pointing out that, in its view, all guarantees given by the State fell within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty(15). The German authorities should, in granting guarantees to firms facing liquidity difficulties, at least have had doubts as to whether the measures involved aid and they should have notified the measures contained in the scheme in good time to the Commission, in order to allow it to give its opinion on the matter. (71) Under the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees(16), the cash grant equivalent of a loan guarantee in a given year can be: (a) calculated in the same way as the grant equivalent of a soft loan, the interest subsidy representing the difference between the market rate and the rate obtained thanks to the State guarantee after any premiums paid have been deducted; or (b) taken to be the difference between the outstanding sum guaranteed, multiplied by the risk factor (the probability of default) and any premium paid, i.e. (guaranteed sum x risk) - premium; or (c) calculated by any other objectively justifiable and generally accepted method. (72) The Commission thus confirmed its long-held view that, if at the time of the loan decision the probability of the borrower being unable to pay is evidently very high, the intensity of the aid can be equivalent to the sum actually secured by the guarantee. (73) Furthermore, the aid element of the guarantee can, even in the case of viable firms, result in the de minimis ceiling being exceeded. (74) In the Commission's view, the rules and their application involve aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in so far as they do not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or do fall within the scope of the Regulation but exceed the de minimis ceiling. The same applies in respect of the other de minimis provisions in force at the time the measures were implemented. (75) Where applied to firms in difficulty, the rules meant that recipient firms received from a private bank financial resources which, in view of their financial situation, they would not otherwise have received from private credit institutions on the basis of the loan terms normally applied by the latter. (76) These financial resources made it possible for recipient firms either to avoid being forced out of the market or to improve their market position. If the firm had been forced out of the market, either existing overcapacities would have been reduced or the market shares made available would have been acquired by competitors, which could in either case have improved their profitability. The working capital loans do not preclude loans being granted to firms which produce goods or provide services that are the subject of intra-Community trade. It must therefore be assumed that the financial measures concerned by the proceedings are liable to affect trade between Member States. (77) Even viable firms would not have obtained such finance from private banks on the terms offered and were therefore able to improve their market position vis-à-vis competitors within the common market as a result of the working capital loans provided. This applies in particular to viable firms operating in sensitive sectors. Community markets in sensitive sectors are faced with overcapacity. The financial advantage conferred on the specific firms by the working capital loans led to their position being strengthened vis-à-vis competitors, with the result that trade between Member States might be affected. (78) The rules thus might have distorted or threatened to distort competition. (79) The Commission accordingly concludes that the rules and their application constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty for firms involved in intra-Community trade. 4.2. Lawfulness of the aid (80) The Commission regrets that, in granting the aid, Germany acted in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. 4.3. Compatibility of the aid with the common market in so far as the scope of application of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or of the other, previously applicable, de minimis provisions was exceeded (81) The Commission assessed the rules on the assumption that they were directed both at viable firms and at firms in difficulty. (82) In as much as aid was granted to firms in difficulty, it constituted restructuring or rescue aid as defined in the Commission's Eighth Report on Competition Policy published in 1979 and in the 1994 Guidelines(17), confirmed by the Guidelines adopted in 1999(18). (83) In so far as the aid was granted to viable firms in the sensitive sectors, it constituted operating aid within the meaning of the Commission communication of 1979 on regional aid systems(19) and of the Commission communication of 1988 on the method for the application of Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid(20). These communications were confirmed by the 1998 guidelines on national regional aid(21). (84) The compatibility of the rules will be examined in the light of the relevant provisions applicable(22). (85) In so far as the restructuring of firms in difficulty is involved, it should be noted that, in accordance with the Commission's practice and the 1994 Guidelines, the following criteria had to be met as a precondition for compatibility of the aid with the common market: (a) submission and implementation of a restructuring plan capable of restoring the long-term viability of the firm; (b) a significant contribution from the recipient firm and its shareholders; (c) limitation of the aid to the strict minimum required; (d) compliance with the special rules governing the sensitive sectors, requiring in principle the notification of individual cases; (e) individual notification of aid to large firms; (f) restructuring aid to be granted only once in so far as there are no unforeseen circumstances for which the company is not responsible. (86) Under the rules, the only precondition for the granting of funds was that the applicant bank representing a firm had to provide appropriate backing from its own resources in the provision of the working capital. (87) However, the rules did not require submission of a viable restructuring plan which, taking account of the working capital loan, made it likely that profitability could be restored on a long-term basis. (88) The wording of the rules does not prohibit the repeated grant of restructuring aid or limit the amount of aid to the strict minimum required to achieve the goal. Germany did not indicate whether these criteria were taken into account in the granting of aid. (89) The rules did not provide for individual notification of aid for large firms or require compliance with the special rules for sensitive sectors. (90) The Commission therefore finds that, to the extent that the rules provide for restructuring aid to firms in difficulty, such aid is not compatible with the common market. (91) In so far as the rescue of firms in difficulty is involved, it must be noted that the established policy in this respect was to make it a precondition of compatibility with the common market that rescue aid be granted either in the form of public loans on market terms or in the form of a State guarantee on a private-sector loan. This condition was not met in the case in point since the loans in question were soft loans. (92) To the extent that the provision of rescue aid under the rules is involved, this aid is incompatible with the common market. (93) In as much as loans were granted to economically viable firms in the sensitive sectors, they constituted operating aid, which had to be assessed by the Commission in the light of the provisions on regional aid that applied to the rules. (94) Thuringia is an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) (formerly Article 92(3)(a)) of the EC Treaty. The Commission communications on regional aid of 1979 and 1988(23) allowed the Commission exceptionally and on certain conditions to approve certain types of operating aid in assisted areas in view of the particular difficulties they face. (95) A prerequisite for approval of operating aid was that it should contribute to durable and balanced economic development and should not give rise to sectoral overcapacity at Community level, such that the resulting Community sectoral problem was more serious than the original regional problem. A sectoral approach was required here whereby the Community rules and guidelines applicable to certain sectors of industry (steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, textiles and clothing) and agriculture and to industrial firms involved in processing agricultural products were to be observed. Under these Community rules and guidelines, operating aid cannot be granted in the sectors concerned. (96) The rules are incompatible with the common market in so far as aid to viable firms in the sensitive sectors is involved, since the Community rules and guidelines applicable to sensitive sectors, which prohibit the granting of operating aid to viable firms, should have been observed. (97) The Commission takes the view that the exemptions under Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty do not apply in this case as the rules do not pursue any of the aims listed there. Nor did Germany claim that those exemptions applied(24). (98) The Commission concludes that, apart from the Guidelines for assessing aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, no special provisions concerning aid with horizontal objectives pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty are applicable to the rules since they do not pursue one of the special objectives and Germany has not argued that this is the case. (99) In the Commission's view, the aid is equally not intended to promote an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State. Nor does it promote culture or heritage conservation. The Commission therefore concludes that neither Article 87(3)(b) nor Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty applies to the rules. (100) Some of the individual cases covered by the rules may have been the subject of other formal investigation proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. This decision does not apply to them. 5. CONCLUSION (101) The aid scheme is unlawful. Aid that exceeded the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or, where it was not caught by the Regulation, exceeded the scope of the other applicable de minimis provisions in force at the time the scheme was implemented was granted unlawfully. (102) The aid scheme is incompatible with the common market in that it allows rescue aid to be granted at subsidised interest rates outside its de minimis scope, allows restructuring aid to be granted without taking account of the conditions that it was the Commission's established practice to impose, does not require notification of individual cases in the sensitive sectors and does not rule out aid to viable firms in the sensitive sectors. (103) Accordingly, application of the rules outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or of the other relevant de minimis provisions to firms in difficulty and in respect of operating aid to viable firms in the sensitive sectors was incompatible with the common market. (104) It is the Commission's long-established practice to require recovery from the recipient of aid which, under Article 87 of the EC Treaty, has been unlawfully granted and is incompatible, provided that the aid is not covered by de minimis provisions. This practice was confirmed by Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(25). This Article requires Member States to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary. To clarify the number of cases where recovery is required, the Commission considers that Germany should draw up a list of all firms not covered by the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The rules governing the Thuringia working capital programme (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") establish State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. The rules do not establish aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if the payments fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or, where this is not the case, within the scope of the de minimis provisions in force at the time the rules were implemented and, in combination with other de minimis aid, do not exceed the relevant de minimis ceiling of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or the previous de minimis provisions. The rules do not establish aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if the payments were for firms not involved in producing goods or providing services for intra-Community trade. To the extent that the rules are caught by Article 87(1), they involve unlawful aid. Article 2 In so far as the rules establish aid for viable firms outside the sensitive sectors, they are compatible with the common market. Article 3 In so far as the rules establish rescue and restructuring aid for firms in difficulty, they are incompatible with the common market where they fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. Article 4 In so far as the rules establish operating aid for firms in the sensitive sectors, they are incompatible with the common market where they fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. Article 5 Germany shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid referred to in Articles 3 and 4 and unlawfully made available to them. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid. Article 6 This Decision does not apply to those cases covered by the rules that have been the subject of other Commission proceedings or of a final Commission decision. Germany shall draw up a list of the cases concerned. Article 7 Germany shall, in implementing this Decision, draw up a list of the firms concerned in cases which fall outside the sectoral scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or which, if the aid element contained in the guarantee and other de minimis aid granted during the relevant period are included, exceed the ceiling laid down in that Regulation. In implementing this Decision, Germany shall draw up a list of all firms in difficulty assisted under the rules which are not caught by Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 and shall indicate the criteria on which the classification is based. In this connection, Germany shall also devise a method to identify the aid element in the guarantee. In implementing this Decision, it shall draw up a list of firms assisted under the rules which are not caught by Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 and which were not involved in producing goods or providing services for intra-Community trade and shall indicate the criteria applied. Article 8 Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. Article 9 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 27 November 2002.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2213/88 of 19 July 1988 fixing the target prices and intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seed for the 1988/89 marketing year THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof, Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 89 (1) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2210/88 (2), and in particular Article 22 (4) and Article 24a (2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (4), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (5), Whereas, when the target prices and intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seed are fixed, account should be taken of the objectives of the common agricultural policy and of the contribution which the Community desires to make to the harmonious development of world trade; whereas the objectives of the common agricultural policy are, in particular, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to ensure that supplies are available and that they reach consumers at reasonable prices; Whereas the intervention price must be fixed in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 24 (1) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC; Whereas the prices of colza, rape and sunflower seed must be fixed for specific standard qualities; whereas the latter should be laid down in relation to the average qualities of the seeds harvested in the Community; whereas, for colza and rape seed, the quality laid down for the 1987/88 marketing year meets these requirements and can accordingly be used for the 1988/89 marketing year; Whereas, on the basis of these criteria, the target and intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seed should be fixed at the levels given below; (6) OJ No 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66. (7) See page 1 of this Official Journal. (8) OJ No C 139, 30. 5. 1988, p. 24. (9) OJ No C 167, 27. 6. 1988. (10) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 33. Whereas the supplement to be applied to the target and intervention prices for ´double zero' colza and rape seed must be fixed in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 24a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC; Whereas, under Article 68 of the Act of Accession, prices in Spain have been set at a level different from that of the common prices; whereas, pursuant to Article 70 (1) of the Act of Accession, the Spanish prices should be aligned on the common prices each year at the beginning of the marketing year; whereas the criteria envisaged for this alignment give the Spanish prices set out below, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 For the 1988/89 marketing year, the target prices and the intervention prices for colza, rape and sunflower seeds shall be as follows: (a) target price for colza and rape seed: - 40,86 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain, - 45,02 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States; (b) intervention price for colza and rape seed: - 36,60 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain, - 40,76 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States; (c) target price for sunflower seed: - 46,28 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain, - 58,35 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States; (d) intervention price for sunflower seed: - 41,40 ECU per 100 kilograms for Spain, - 53,47 ECU per 100 kilograms for the other Member States; Article 2 The prices referred to in Article 1 shall relate to seeds in bulk which are of sound, genuine and merchantable quality: (a) with an impurity content of 2 % and, for seeds as such, moisture and oil contents of 9 % and 40 % respectively in the case of colza and rape seed; (b) with an impurity content of 2 % and, for seeds as such, moisture and oil contents of 9 % and 44 % respectively in the case of sunflower seed. Article 3 For the 1988/89 marketing year, the supplement to be applied to the target and intervention prices for ´double zero' colza and rape seed shall be 2,50 ECU per 100 kilograms. Article 4 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply with effect: - from 1 July 1988 as regards colza and rape seed, - from 1 August 1988 as regards sunflower seed. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 19 July 1988.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3047/83 of 28 October 1983 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76 on the sale of skimmed-milk powder from public storage THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1600/83 (2), and in particular Article 7 (5) thereof, Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2836/83 (4), limited the quantity of skimmed-milk powder put up for sale by the Member States' intervention agencies to that taken into storage before 1 June 1983; Whereas, having regard to the market situation and the amounts in storage, that date should be replaced by 1 August 1983; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 In Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2213/76, '1 June 1983' is hereby replaced by '1 August 1983'. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 28 October 1983.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Decision of 23 July 1999 on the conclusion of two cooperation agreements between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in the field of nuclear safety and in the field of controlled nuclear fusion (notified under document number C(1999) 2405) (2002/924/Euratom) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof, Having regard to the approval of the Council, Whereas the two agreements between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in the field of nuclear safety and in the field of nuclear fusion must be concluded, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article The two agreements between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in the field of nuclear safety and in the field of controlled nuclear fusion are hereby concluded on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community. The text of the two Agreements are attached to this Decision. Done at Brussels, 23 July 1999.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1060/2006 of 12 July 2006 amending the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(8) thereof, Whereas: (1) The corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals was fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 992/2006 (2). (2) On the basis of today's cif prices and cif forward delivery prices, taking foreseeable developments on the market into account, the corrective amount at present applicable to the refund on cereals should be altered. (3) The corrective amount must be fixed according to the same procedure as the refund. It may be altered in the period between fixings, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to the export refunds fixed in advance in respect of the products referred to, except for malt, is hereby altered to the amounts set out in the Annex hereto. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2006. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 12 July 2006.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 3 June 1994 amending Commission Decision 93/437/EEC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery products from Argentina (94/341/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 (1), laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof, Whereas the list of establishments and factory ships approved by Argentina for importing fishery products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 93/437/EEC (2), as last amended by Decision 93/525/EEC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Argentina; Whereas the competent authority in Argentina has communicated a new list adding three establishments and 23 factory ships, deleting 12 establishments and one factory ship, and amending the data of five establishments; Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments and factory ships accordingly; Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4), HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Annex B of Decision 93/437/EEC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 June 1994.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 577/2006 of 7 April 2006 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) thereof, Whereas: (1) Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund. (2) Given the present situation on the market in poultrymeat, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and criteria provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75. (3) Article 8(3), second subparagraph of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination. (4) Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that bear the identification mark as provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2). Those products should also comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (3). (5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. Export refunds as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation subject to the condition provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article. 2. The products eligible for a refund under paragraph 1 must meet the relevant requirements of Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 and (EC) No 853/2004, notably preparation in an approved establishment and compliance with the identification marking requirements laid down in Annex II, Section I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 April 2006. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 7 April 2006.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1444/2004 of 12 August 2004 amending the representative prices and additional duties for the import of certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 for the 2004/2005 marketing year THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in the sugar sector other than molasses (2), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), and Article 3(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2004/2005 marketing year are fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 (3). These prices and duties have last been amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1358/2004 (4). (2) The data currently available to the Commission indicate that the said amounts should be changed in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1423/95, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The representative prices and additional duties on imports of the products referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1423/95, as fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1210/2004 for the 2004/2005 marketing year are hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 August 2004. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 12 August 2004.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 15 July 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (80/777/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3), Whereas the laws of the Member States define natural mineral waters ; whereas differing definitions are adopted in this connection within the Community ; whereas these laws lay down the terms on which natural mineral waters are recognized as such and govern the conditions for exploiting the springs ; whereas they furthermore stipulate specific rules for marketing the waters in question; Whereas the differences between these laws hinder the free movement of the natural mineral waters, creating disparate competitive situations, and consequently directly affect the establishing and functioning of the common market; Whereas, in this particular case, the elimination of these barriers may be achieved both by an obligation on each Member State to allow the marketing in its territory of the natural mineral waters recognized as such by each of the other member States and by laying down common rules concerning in particular the microbiological requirements to be fulfilled and the conditions in which specific names must be used for certain of the mineral waters; Whereas, pending the conclusion of agreements on mutual recognition of natural mineral waters between the Community and third countries, the terms should be laid down on which, until implementation of the said agreements, similar products imported from third countries may be allowed to enter the Community as natural mineral waters, Whereas care should be taken to ensure that natural mineral waters retain at the marketing stage those characteristics which enabled them to be recognized as such ; whereas, therefore, the containers used for packaging them should have suitable closures; Whereas, in respect of labelling, natural mineral waters are subject to the general rules laid down by Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of (1)OJ No C 69, 11.6.1970, p. 14. (2)OJ No C 45, 10.5.1971, p. 5. (3)OJ No C 36, 19.4.1971, p. 14. foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (1) ; whereas, accordingly, this Directive may be limited to laying down the additions and derogations which should be made to those general rules; Whereas, in order to simplify and speed up the procedure, the Commission should be entrusted with the task of adopting technical implementing measures, and in particular defining the procedure for taking samples and the methods of analysis necessary to check the composition of natural mineral waters; Whereas, in all cases in which the Council entrusts the Commission with responsibility for implementing rules laid down concerning foodstuffs intended for human consumption, provision should be made for a procedure establishing close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs, set up by Decision 69/414/EEC (2), HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 1. This Directive concerns waters extracted from the ground of a Member State and recognized by the responsible authority of that Member State as natural mineral waters satisfying the provisions of Annex I, Section I. 2. This Directive also concerns waters extracted from the ground of a third country, imported into the Community and recognized as natural mineral waters by the responsible authority of a Member State. The waters referred to in the first subparagraph may be so recognized only if the responsible authority in the country of extraction has certified that they satisfy Annex I, Section I, and that regular checks are made on the application of the provisions of Annex II, paragraph 2. The validity of the certification referred to in the second subparagraph may not exceed a period of two years. It shall not be necessary to repeat the recognition procedure referred to in the first subparagraph if the certification is renewed before the end of the said period. 3. This Directive shall not apply: - to waters which are medicinal products within the meaning of Directive 65/65/EEC (3), - to natural mineral waters used at source for curative purposes in thermal or hydromineral establishments. 4. The grounds for granting the recognition referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, shall be stated in due form by the responsible authority of the Member State and shall be officially published. 5. Each Member State shall inform the Commission of the cases where the recognition referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 has been granted or withdrawn. The list of natural mineral waters so recognized shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Article 2 Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that only the waters referred to in Article 1 which comply with the provisions of this Directive may be marketed as natural mineral waters. Article 3 Natural mineral water springs may be exploited and their waters bottled only in accordance with Annex II. Article 4 1. Natural mineral water, in its state at source, may not be the subject of any treatment or addition other than: (a) the separation of its unstable elements, such as iron and sulphur compounds, by filtration or decanting, possibly preceded by oxygenation, in so far as this treatment does not alter the composition of the water as regards the essential constituents which give it its properties; (b) the total or partial elimination of free carbon dioxide by exclusively physical methods; (c) the introduction or the reintroduction of carbon dioxide under the conditions laid down in Annex I, Section III; 2. In particular any disinfection treatment by whatever means and, subject to paragraph 1 (c), the addition of bacteriostatic elements or any other treatment likely to change the viable colony count of the natural mineral water shall be prohibited. 3. Paragraph 1 shall not constitute a bar to the utilization of natural mineral water in the manufacture of soft drinks. (1)OJ No L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1. (2)OJ No L 291, 19.11.1969, p. 9. (3)OJ No 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369/65. Article 5 1. The revivable total colony count of a natural mineral water at source shall conform to its normal viable colony count and give satisfactory evidence of the protection of the source against all contamination. This total colony count shall be determined under the conditions laid down in Annex I, Section II, point 1.3.3. After bottling, the total colony count at source may not exceed 100 per millilitre at 20 to 22 ºC in 72 hours on agar-agar or an agar-gelatine mixture and 20 per millilitre at 37 ºC in 24 hours on agar-agar. The total colony count shall be measured within the 12 hours following bottling, the water being maintained at 4 ºC ± 1 ºC during this 12-hour period. At source, these values should not normally exceed 20 per millilitre at 20 to 22 ºC in 72 hours and 5 per millilitre at 37 ºC in 24 hours respectively, on the understanding that they are to be considered as guide figures and not as maximum permitted concentrations. 2. At source and during its marketing, a natural mineral water shall be free from: (a) parasites and pathogenic micro-organisms; (b) Escherichia coli and other coliforms and faecal streptococci in any 250 ml sample examined; (c) sporulated sulphite-reducing anaerobes in any 50 ml sample examined; (d) Pseudomonas aeruginosa in any 250 ml sample examined. 3. Without prejudice to paragraphs 1 and 2 and the conditions of exploitation laid down in Annex II, at the marketing stage: - the revivable total colony count of a natural mineral water may only be that resulting from the normal increase in the bacteria content which it had at source, - the natural mineral water may not contain any organoleptic defects. Article 6 Any containers used for packaging natural mineral waters shall be fitted with closures designed to avoid any possibility of adulteration or contamination. Article 7 1. The sales description of natural mineral waters shall be "natural mineral water" or, in the case of an effervescent natural mineral water as defined in Annex I, Section III, as appropriate, "naturally carbonated natural mineral water", "natural mineral water fortified with gas from the spring" or "carbonated natural mineral water". The sales description of natural mineral waters which have undergone any of the treatments referred to in Article 4 (1) (b) shall have added to it as appropriate the indication "fully de-carbonated" or "partially de-carbonated". 2. Labels on natural mineral waters shall also give the following mandatory information: (a) - either the words : "composition in accordance with the results of the officially recognized analysis of ... (date of analysis)", - or a statement of the analytical composition giving its characteristic constituents; (b) the place where the spring is exploited and the name of the spring. 3. Member States may also: (a) retain the provisions which require the country of origin to be indicated, although this information cannot be demanded in the case of natural mineral waters from a spring in the territory of the Community; (b) introduce provisions which require information on any treatments referred to in Article 4 (1) (a). Article 8 1. The name of a locality, hamlet or place may occur in the wording of a trade description provided that it refers to a natural mineral water the spring of which is exploited at the place indicated by that description and provided that it is not misleading as regards the place of exploitation of the spring. 2. It shall be forbidden to market natural mineral water from one and the same spring under more than one trade description. 3. When the labels or inscriptions on the containers in which the natural mineral waters are offered for sale include a trade description different from the name of the spring or the place of its exploitation, this place or the name of the spring shall be indicated in letters at least one and a half times the height and width of the largest of the letters used for that trade description. The first subparagraph shall apply, mutatis mutandis and with the same intention as regards the importance attributed to the name of the spring or the place of its exploitation, with regard to the trade description used in advertising, in whatsoever form, relating to natural mineral waters. Article 9 1. It shall be forbidden, both on packaging or labels and in advertising in whatsoever form, to use designations, proprietary names, trade marks, brand names, illustrations or other signs, whether emblematic or not, which: (a) in the case of a natural mineral water, suggest a characteristic which the water does not possess, in particular as regards its origin, the date of the authorization to exploit it, the results of analyses or any similar references to guarantees of authenticity; (b) in the of drinking water packaged in containers which does not satisfy the provisions of Annex I, Section I, are liable to cause confusion with a natural mineral water, in particular the description "mineral water". 2. (a) All indications attributing to a natural mineral water properties relating to the prevention, treatment or cure of a human illness shall be prohibited. (b) However, the indications listed in Annex III to this Directive shall be authorized if they meet the relevant criteria laid down in that Annex or, in the absence thereof, criteria laid down in national provisions and provided that they have been drawn up on the basis of physico-chemical analyses and, where necessary, pharmacological, physiological and clinical examinations carried out according to recognized scientific methods, in accordance with Section I, paragraph 2 of Annex I. (c) Member States may authorize the indications "stimulates digestion", "may facilitate the hepato-biliary functions" or similar indications. They may also authorize the inclusion of other indications, provided that the latter do not conflict with the principles stated in (a) and are compatible with those stated in (b). 3. Member States may adopt special provisions regarding information - both on packaging or labels and in advertising - concerning the suitability of a natural mineral water for the feeding of infants. Such provisions may also concern the properties of the water which determine the use of the said information. Member States which intend taking such measures shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of them beforehand. 4. Not later than three years after notification of this Directive, the Commission shall submit to the Council a report and, where appropriate, suitable proposals on the application of the provisions referred to in 1.2.12 of Annex I, Section II. Article 10 1. Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to ensure that trade in natural mineral waters which comply with the definitions and rules laid down in this Directive cannot be impeded by the application of non-harmonized national provisions governing the properties, composition, conditions of exploitation, packaging or labelling of natural mineral waters or foodstuffs in general. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to non-harmonized national provisions justified on grounds of: - protection of public health, - prevention of fraud, unless such provisions are likely to impede the application of the definitions and rules laid down by this Directive, - protection of industrial and commercial property, indications of source, designations of origin and the prevention of unfair competition. Article 11 The sampling procedures and the methods of analysis necessary for checking the microbiological characteristics referred to in Article 5 and the compositional characteristics referred to in 1.2 of Annex I, Section II, shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12. Article 12 1. Where the procedure laid down in this Article is to be followed, the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs, hereinafter called "the Committee", by its Chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State. 2. The Commission representative shall submit a draft of the measures to be taken to the Committee. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on that draft within a time limit set by the chairman having regard to the urgency of the matter. Opinions shall be arrived at by a majority of 41 votes, the votes of the Member States being weighted in accordance with Article 148 (2) of the Treaty. The chairman shall not vote. 3. (a) Where the measures envisaged are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee the Commission shall adopt them; (b) where the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall forthwith submit to the Council a proposal on the measures to be taken. The Council shall act by a qualified majority; (c) if within three months of the matter being brought before it the Council has not acted, the measures proposed shall be adopted by the Commission. Article 13 Article 12 shall apply for a period of 18 months from the date on which the matter was first referred to the Committee under Article 12 (1). Article 14 This Directive shall not apply to natural mineral waters intended for export to third countries. Article 15 Member States shall make such amendments to their laws as may be necessary to comply with this Directive and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof ; the laws thus amended shall be applied in such a way as to: - permit trade in products complying with this Directive not later than two years after its notification, - prohibit trade in products not complying with this Directive four years after its notification. Article 16 This Directive shall also apply to the overseas departments of the French Republic. Article 17 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 15 July 1980.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3857/87 of 22 December 1987 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 laying down detailed rules for the application of the subsidy system for oilseeds THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the markets in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1915/87 (2), and in particular Article 27 (5) thereof, Whereas, as a result of the increase in the Community's oilseed harvest, undertakings are increasingly stepping up the quantities which they process; whereas provision should therefore be made, in particular, for the application for the ID part of the certificate referred to in Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3074/87 (4), to be considered in cases where the seeds enter the undertaking immediately after the application is lodged and during hours when the offices of the competent agency are closed; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The second subparagraph of Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 is hereby replaced by the follwing: 'However, the application shall also be considered where the seeds enter the undertaking during periods when the offices of the competent agency are closed including non-working days immediately following the day on which the said application was lodged.' Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 22 December 1987.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1793/94 of 20 July 1994 amending for the 10th time Regulation (EC) No 3337/93 adopting exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in Belgium THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1249/89 (2), and in particular Article 20 thereof, Whereas because of the outbreak of classical swine fever in one production region in Belgium, exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat were adopted for that Member State in Commission Regulation (EC) No 3337/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1481/94 (4); Whereas it is necessary to adjust the buying-in price for pigs to the present market situation taking into account the decrease in market prices; Whereas in view of a new outbreak of classical swine fever, the veterinary and commercial restrictions have been extended by the Belgian authorities to a new region in the middle of June 1994; whereas it is appropriate to include, as from 12 July 1994, the animals coming from this region in the buying-in scheme provided for by Regulation (EC) No 3337/93; Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1391/94 (5) has introduced as from 6 June 1994 a new quantity of pigs eligibles under the support measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 3337/94; whereas it is appropriate to amend this date in order to allow the inclusion of pigs bought in in the first days of the month of June 1994; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 3337/93 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article 4 is amended as follows: (a) in paragraph 1, 'ECU 109' is replaced by 'ECU 102' and 'ECU 93' is replaced by 'ECU 87'; (b) in paragraph 2, 'ECU 39' is replaced by 'ECU 32' and 'ECU 33' is replaced by 'ECU 27'; (c) in paragraph 3, 'ECU 31' is replaced by 'ECU 26' and 'ECU 26' is replaced by 'ECU 22'; 2. Annex I is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 In Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1391/94, '6 June 1994' is replaced by '31 May 1994'. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply as from 21 July 1994. However, the provisions of Article 1 point 2 shall apply with effect from 12 July 1994. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 20 July 1994.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 28 January 1991 on the eligibility of expenditure to be incurred in 1991 by Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (Only the German, Greek and Portuguese texts are authentic) (91/62/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Decision 89/631/EEC of 27 November 1989 on a Community financial contribution towards expenditure incurred by Member States for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (1), and in particular Article 2 (2) thereof, Whereas, in accordance with Decision 89/631/EEC, the Commission has received applications for Community financial contributions from Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom towards expenditure to be incurred during 1991; Whereas the applications refer to expenditure for the acquisition or modernization of vessels, aircraft and land vehicles including their equipment, systems for the detection and recording of fishing activities and systems for recording and transmitting catch data and other relevant information; Whereas such expenditure will help to develop monitoring and supervision facilities for the proper implementation of the Community's fishery resources conservation arrangements; Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Resources, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The expenditure foreseen for 1991 shown in the Annex, corresponding to an amount of ECU 8 816 565, is eligible for a financial contribution under Decision 89/631/EEC. The Community contribution shall be 50 % of the eligible expenditure. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic and the United Kingdom. Done at Brussels, 28 January 1991.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1423/92 of 27 May 1992 fixing the minimum purchase price for lemons delivered for processing and the amount of the financial compensation after processing of such lemons for the 1992/93 marketing year THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 of 17 May 1977 laying down special measures to encourage the marketing of products processed from lemons (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1199/90 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof, Whereas, pursuant to Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77, the minimum price which processors must pay to producers is fixed at 105 % of the average withdrawal price, calculated in accordance with the first indent of Article 18 (1) (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1156/92 (4), from the 1991/92 marketing year; whereas the minimum prices for Spain and Portugal are fixed at 105 % of the average withdrawal price; Whereas, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77, the financial compensation cannot exceed the difference between the minimum purchase price referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation and the prices applying to the raw material in producer third countries; Whereas the provisions applicable where a product harvested in Spain or Portugal is processed in another Member State should be specified owing to the varying amounts fixed for those Member States; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. For the 1992/93 marketing year, the minimum price referred to in Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 is hereby fixed as follows: (ECU/100 kg net) Spain Portugal Other Member States 11,61 11,76 14,71 2. The minimum price shall be fixed for goods ex-producers' packing stations. Article 2 For the 1992/93 marketing year, the financial compensation referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 is hereby fixed as follows: (ECU/100 kg net) Spain Portugal Other Member States 6,67 6,82 9,77 Article 3 The minimum price and the financial compensation applicable shall be those in force in the Member State in which the product was harvested. Article 4 This Regulation shall enter into force the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It is to be applied from 1 June 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 27 May 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1174/86 of 21 April 1986 amending Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 concerning the Community arrangements applicable to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for trade in agricultural products THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to the 1972 Act of Accession, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 1 (2) of Protocol No 3 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas certain veterinary provisions in respect of Northern Ireland and relating to foot-and-mouth disease and trade in live animals, fresh meat and meat-based products have been liberalized; Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 (1) linked the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to Northern Ireland for purposes of the veterinary sector; Whereas, in order to minimize the risk of disease, it is necessary to permit these islands to maintain their veterinary rules in relation to foot-and-mouth disease which have been in force hitherto, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 706/73 is hereby replaced by the following: 'Article 3 From 1 September 1973, the Community provisions in the following fields: - veterinary legislation, - animal health legislation, - plant health legislation, - marketing of seeds and seedlings, - food legislation, - feedingstuffs legislation, - quality and marketing standards, shall apply under the same conditions as in the United Kingdom to the products referred to in Article 1 imported into the islands or exported from the islands to the Community. However, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man may retain, concerning trade in live animals, fresh meat and meat-based products, the specific provisions in relation to foot-and-mouth disease which they apply to imports. Such provisions shall be no more restrictive than those in force on 30 September 1985'. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 21 April 1986.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 485/2002 of 18 March 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 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 the Annex thereto. (2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 March 2002. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 18 March 2002.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Decision of 27 August 2003 amending Decision 2000/367/EC establishing a classification system for resistance-to-fire performance for construction products, as regards the inclusion of smoke and heat control products (notified under document number C(2003) 2851) (Text with EEA relevance) (2003/629/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(1), as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC(2), and in particular Article 20(2) thereof, Whereas: (1) Commission Decision 2000/367/EC of 3 May 2000 implementing Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards the classification of the resistance-to-fire performance of construction products, construction works and parts thereof(3) should, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, also cover smoke and heat control products. (2) Decision 2000/367/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. (3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The Annex to Decision 2000/367/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 27 August 2003.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Decision of 24 May 2002 on the sale of Community olive oil residues held by the Italian intervention agency (notified under document number C(2002) 1642) (Only the Italian text is authentic) (2002/408/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1513/2001(2), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) Under the intervention arrangements prior to 1 November 1998 olive oil was purchased by the Spanish, Greek and Italian intervention agencies. The legal basis for those arrangements was repealed with effect from 1 November 1998 by Regulation (EC) No 1638/98. However, in order to guarantee a smooth transition from the intervention buying-in arrangements to the current situation where those arrangements no longer exist and in order to release all available stocks of olive oil from Community intervention agencies, the sale of quantities still in storage in Italy should be authorised. The oil is vat-bottom residues which contain a considerable percentage of olive oil. (2) Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2754/78 of 23 November 1978 on intervention in the olive oil sector(3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2203/90(4), provides that Community olive oil held by intervention agencies should be put up for sale by tender, unless special conditions warrant recourse to other procedures. The olive oil residues still in storage in Italy could not be sold under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2599/2001 of 28 December 2001 on the sale of Community olive oil residues held by the Spanish, Greek and Italian intervention agencies(5) because not enough tenders were received in Italy. Those olive oil residues should be put up for sale again. To enable the Italian authorities to find a fair solution under the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2754/78, the sale of those residues should be authorised via direct agreement instead of via a public tendering procedure. (3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 1. The Italian intervention agency "Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura", hereafter called "AGEA", is authorised to sell by direct agreement 27,1 tonnes of Community olive oil residue held by it as a result of intervention on the Community olive oil market. 2. The product referred to in paragraph 1 must be sold before 15 July 2002. 3. The product must be delivered before 8 September 2002. 4. The Italian intervention agency shall inform the Commission as soon as possible of the outcome of the sale. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic. Done at Brussels, 24 May 2002.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 14 March 1996 establishing the list of approved fish farms in Denmark (Text with EEA relevance) (96/233/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of acquaculture animals and products (1), as last amended by Directive 95/22/EC (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof, Whereas the Member States may obtain, for fish farms situated in zones which are not approved with regard to infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS), the status of approved farm free of these diseases; Whereas, by Commission Decision 94/864/EC (3) and 95/336/EC (4), Denmark has already obtained approval for a number of fish farms as being free of infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS); Whereas, by letter of 18 October 1995, Denmark submitted to the Commission the justifications for obtaining the status of approved farm in respect of VHS for one fish farm in a non-approved zone, as well as the national rules ensuring compliance with the rules on maintenance of approval; Whereas the Commission and the Member States examined the justifications notified by Denmark for the farm in question; Whereas the result of this examination is that the farm in question meets all the requirements of Article 6 of Council Directive 91/67/EEC; Whereas it is necessary to consolidate the Decisions taken previously concerning the approval of fish farms in Denmark; Whereas Denmark is already recognized as an approved zone in respect of IHN; Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The fish farms listed in the Annex are recognized as approved farms with regard to IHN and VHS, situated in a zone not approved with regard to VHS. Article 2 Decision 95/336/EC is herewith repealed. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 14 March 1996.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 565/2002 of 2 April 2002 establishing the method for managing tariff quotas and introducing a system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from third countries THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 911/2001(2), and in particular Article 31(2) thereof, Having regard to Council Decision 2001/104/EC of 28 May 2001 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Community and Argentina pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 for the modification of concessions with respect to garlic provided for in Schedule CXL annexed to GATT(3), and in particular Article 2 thereof, Whereas: (1) Following negotiations conducted in accordance with Article XXVIII of GATT 1994, the Community amended the conditions for the import of garlic. Since 1 June 2001 the normal customs duty for imports of garlic falling within CN code 0703 20 00 has consisted of an ad valorem customs duty of 9,6 % and a specific amount of EUR 1200 per tonne net. However, a quota of 38370 tonnes free of specific duty was opened by the Agreement concluded with Argentina, approved by Decision 2001/404/EC, hereafter called the "GATT quota". The Agreement stipulates that the quota is to be divided up into 19147 tonnes for imports from Argentina (serial number 09.4104), 13200 tonnes for imports from China (serial number 09.4105) and 6023 tonnes for imports from other countries (serial number 09.4106). (2) Imports of garlic may also be carried out, outside the GATT quota or the normal duty, on preferential terms, under agreements concluded between the Community and certain third countries. (3) The method for managing the GATT quota was established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1865/2001(5). Experience shows however that this management could be improved and simplified. In particular, the need for import licences for imports carried out outside the GATT quota should be abolished, and the conditions for access by importers to this quota should be adapted to take better account of traditional trade flows. (4) Imports of garlic can be monitored in accordance with Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2002(7). (5) In view of the existence of a specific duty for non-preferential imports outside the GATT quota, management of the quota requires the introduction of a system of import licences. The detailed rules of that system must be complementary to, or derogate from, those laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products(8), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2299/2001(9). (6) Measures are needed to keep to a minimum speculative applications for import licences which are not linked to a genuine commercial activity on the fruit and vegetable market. To that end special rules should be laid down on applications for and the validity of licences. (7) Given that the Agreement concluded with Argentina provides for the management of the GATT quota on the basis of a system of traditional and new importers, the concept of traditional importers should be defined and the quota allocated between the two categories of importer, while allowing optimum use of the quota. (8) To guarantee correct management of the GATT quota, the measures to be taken by the Commission in the event that licence applications exceed, for a specific origin or in a specific quarter, the quantities fixed by Decision 2001/404/EC plus the unused quantities from licences previously issued, should be determined. Where such measures involve a reduction coefficient to be applied at the time of issue of licences, the possibility should be granted for applications for those licences to be withdrawn with immediate release of the security. (9) To improve controls and prevent any risk of a deflection of trade based on inaccurate documentation, the existing system of certificates of origin for garlic imported from certain third countries and the requirement for this garlic to be transported direct from the third country of origin to the Community should be retained. That certificate of origin is to be issued by the competent national authorities in accordance with Articles 56 to 62 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. (10) Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 should be repealed. (11) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: CHAPTER I TARIFF QUOTAS Article 1 Purpose and fixing of customs duty applicable to the quota 1. This Chapter lays down the rules for managing tariff quotas for garlic falling within CN code 0703 20 00, opened by Decision 2001/404/EC. 2. The ad valorem duty applicable to products imported under the quotas referred to in paragraph 1 shall be 9,6 %. Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Regulation: (a) "import period" means a period of one year running from 1 June of one year to the following 31 May; (b) "importers" means operators, natural or legal persons, individuals or groups having imported into the Community, in at least one of the previous two calendar years, at least 50 tonnes per year of fruit and vegetables as referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96; (c) "traditional importers" mean importers who have imported garlic into the Community in at least two of the three previous import periods, irrespective of the origin and date of these imports; (d) "reference quantity" means the maximum quantity of annual imports of garlic carried out by a traditional importer during the 1998, 1999 and 2000 calendar years. Where the importer in question has not imported any garlic during at least two of these three years, the reference quantity shall be the maximum quantity of annual imports of garlic during the three import periods preceding that for which a licence application has been presented; (e) "new importers" mean importers who are not traditional importers. The reference quantity calculated for a period shall remain valid for the whole of that period. Article 3 System of import licences 1. All imports under the quotas referred to in Article 1(1) shall be subject to the presentation of an import licence, hereafter called the "licence", issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, subject to the provisions of this Regulation. 2. Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall not apply to the licences. Box 19 of licences shall be marked "0". 3. Notwithstanding Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, the rights accruing from licences shall not be transferable. 4. The amount of the security referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall be EUR 15 per tonne net. Article 4 Validity of licences 1. Box 8 of licence applications and licences shall indicate the country of origin of the product. The word "yes" in box 8 shall be marked with a cross. Licences shall be valid only for the products originating in the country indicated in that box. 2. Licences shall be valid only for the quarter for which they have been issued. Box 24 thereof shall contain one of the following entries: - certificado expedido y válido solamente para el trimestre comprendido entre el 1 ... y el 28/29/30/31 ... - licens, der kun er udstedt og gyldig for kvartalet fra 1. ... til 28./29./30./31. ... - Lizenz nur erteilt und gültig für das Quartal vom 1. ... bis 28./29./30./31. ... - Πιστοποιητικό εκδοθέν και ισχύον μόνο για το τρίμηνο από την 1η ... έως τις 28/29/30/31 ... - licence issued and valid only for the quarter from 1 [month] to 28/29/30/31 [month] - certificat émis et valable seulement pour le trimestre du 1er ... au 28/29/30/31 ... - titolo rilasciato e valido unicamente per il trimestre dal 1o ... al 28/29/30/31 ... - voor het kwartaal van 1... tot en met 28/29/30/31 ... afgegeven en uitsluitend in dat kwartaal geldig certificaat. - certificado emitido e válido apenas para o trimestre de 1 de ... a 28/29/30/31 de ... - todistus on myönnetty 1 päivän ... ja 28/29/30/31 päivän ... väliselle vuosineljännekselle ja se on voimassa ainoastaan kyseisenä vuosineljänneksenä - licens utfärdad och giltig endast för tremånadersperioden den 1 ... till den 28/29/30/31 ... Article 5 Licence applications 1. Licence applications may be lodged only by importers. To support their applications, importers, and in particular traditional importers, shall provide information verifying to the satisfaction of the competent national authorities compliance with Article 2(b) and (c). Where new importers have obtained licences pursuant to this Regulation or to Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 during the previous import period, they must produce proof that at least 90 % of the quantity allocated to them has actually been released into free circulation. 2. For each of the quarters referred to in Annex I, licence applications may be lodged only from the second Monday of the month before the month preceding the quarter in question until the last Friday inclusive of that quarter. Box 20 of those applications shall contain one of the following entries: - certificado solicitado para el trimestre comprendido entre el 1 ... y el 28/29/30/31 ... - licens, der er ansøgt om for kvartalet fra 1. ... til 28./29./30./31. ... - Lizenz beantragt für das Quartal vom 1. ... bis 28./29./30./31. ... - Πιστοποιητικό που ζητήθηκε για το τρίμηνο από την 1η ... έως τις 28/29/30/31. ... - licence sought for the quarter from 1 [month] to 28/29/30/31 [month] - certificat demandé pour le trimestre du 1er ... au 28/29/30/31 ... - titolo richiesto per il trimestre dal 1o ... al 28/29/30/31 ... - voor het kwartaal van 1... tot en met 28/29/30/31 ... aangevraagd certificaat. - certificado pedido para o trimestre de 1 de ... a 28/29/30/31 de ... - todistus on haettu 1 päivän ... ja 28/29/30/31 päivän ... väliselle vuosineljännekselle - licens begärd för tremånadersperioden den 1 ... till den 28/29/30/31 ... 3. Licence applications lodged by traditional importers may cover, by import period, a quantity no more than the reference quantity for those importers. 4. For each of the three origins and for each of the quarters indicated in Annex I, licences applications lodged by new importers may cover no more than 10 % of the quantity referred to in Annex I for that quarter and for that origin. 5. No licence applications may be lodged for a specific quarter and for a specific origin where no quantity is indicated in Annex I for that quarter and for that origin. 6. Box 20 of licence applications shall indicate "traditional importer" or "new importer" as appropriate. Article 6 Maximum quantity to be issued 1. For each of the three origins and for each of the quarters indicated in Annex I, licences shall be issued only up to a maximum quantity equal to the sum of: (a) the quantity indicated in Annex I for that quarter and for that origin; (b) the quantities not applied for during the previous quarter for that origin; (c) the unused quantities notified to the Commission from licences previously issued for that origin. However, quantities not applied for or not used during an import period may not be transferred to the following import period. 2. For each of the three origins and for each of the quarters indicated in Annex I, the maximum quantity calculated in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be allocated as follows: (a) 70 % to traditional importers, (b) 30 % to new importers. However, the quantities available shall be allocated to each of the two categories of importers without discrimination from the first Monday of the second month of each quarter. Article 7 Member State communications to the Commission 1. The Member States shall notify the Commission of: (a) the quantities covered by licence applications; (b) the quantities covered by unused or partly used licences, corresponding to the difference between the quantities entered on the back of the licences and the quantities for which they were issued; (c) the quantities relating to applications for licences withdrawn pursuant to Article 8(4). 2. The information referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be notified each Thursday in respect of applications lodged on the Monday and Tuesday of that week and each Monday in respect of applications lodged on the previous Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. The information referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c) shall be notified each Thursday in respect of information received the previous week. The communications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made by 12 noon (Brussels time) at the latest. If no import licence application has been lodged or if there are no unused or withdrawn quantities within the meaning of paragraph 1(b) and (c), the Member State concerned shall notify the Commission thereof on the days indicated in this paragraph. If the day for the communication of information provided for in this paragraph is a national holiday, the Member State concerned shall send the said communication by 3 p.m. (Brussels time) at the latest on the previous working day. 3. The communications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be effected by electronic means on the form sent for that purpose by the Commission to the Member States. They shall be broken down by day of licence application, by third country of origin, by quarter and by type of importer within the meaning of Article 2. Article 8 Issue of licences 1. Licences shall be issued on the fifth working day following the day on which applications are lodged unless the Commission takes measures within that time pursuant to paragraph 2. Where measures are adopted pursuant to paragraph 2, licences shall be issued on the third working day following the entry into force of those measures. 2. Where the Commission finds, on the basis of the information notified by the Member States pursuant to Article 7, that licence applications exceed the available balance of one of the maximum quantities established in accordance with Article 6, it shall, if necessary, adopt by means of a regulation a single reduction percentage for the applications in question and shall stop the issue of licences until the date referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) or for the rest of that quarter for subsequent applications. 3. For the purposes of the examination referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall take account of the licences already issued or to be issued for the quarter and the origin in question. 4. Where, pursuant to paragraph 2, the quantity for which a licence is issued is less than the quantity requested, the licence application may be withdrawn within three working days of the entry into force of the measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 2. In the event of such a withdrawal the security shall be released immediately. 5. No licence may be issued with a view to importing products originating in countries listed in Annex II which have not forwarded to the Commission the information needed to set up an administrative cooperation procedure in accordance with Articles 63 to 65 of Regulation (EC) No 2454/93. The information shall be deemed to have been forwarded on the date of its publication as provided for in Article 11. CHAPTER II CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN Article 9 General provisions Any release into free circulation in the Community of garlic originating in a third country listed in Annex II shall be subject to: (a) presentation of a certificate of origin issued by the competent national authorities of that country in accordance with Articles 55 to 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, and (b) the condition that the product has been transported directly, within the meaning of Article 10, from that country to the Community. Article 10 Direct transport 1. The following shall be considered as transported direct to the Community from the third countries listed in Annex II: (a) products transported without passing through the territory of any other third country; (b) products transported through one or more third countries other than the country of origin, with or without transhipment or temporary warehousing in those countries, provided that such passage is justified for geographical reasons or exclusively on account of transport requirements and provided that the products: (i) have remained under the supervision of the customs authorities of the country or countries of transit or warehousing, (ii) have not entered into commerce or been released for consumption there, and (iii) have not undergone operations there other than unloading and reloading or any other operation to keep them in good condition. 2. Proof that the conditions referred to in paragraph 1(b) have been satisfied shall be submitted to the Community authorities. That proof may be provided, in particular, in the form of one of the following documents: (a) a single transport document issued in the country of origin covering passage through the country or countries of transit; (b) a certificate issued by the customs authorities of the country or countries of transit containing: (i) a precise description of the goods; (ii) the dates of their unloading and reloading or their lading or unlading, identifying the vessels used; (iii) certification of the conditions in which they were kept. Article 11 Administrative cooperation As soon as the information needed to set up an administrative cooperation procedure pursuant to Articles 63 to 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 has been forwarded by each third country listed in Annex II, a communication concerning the forwarding of that information shall be published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Communities(10). CHAPTER III FINAL PROVISIONS Article 12 Repeal Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 is hereby repealed with effect from 1 June 2002. Article 13 Entry into force This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply to licences applied for from 8 April 2002, for the quarter from 1 June to 31 August 2002, and to releases into free circulation effected from 1 June 2002. It shall not apply to releases into free circulation carried out, until 31 May 2002, under import licences issued in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 2 April 2002.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 24 November 1978 amending Directive 72/159/EEC on the modernization of farms and Directive 73/131/EEC on the guidance premium provided for in Article 10 of the Directive of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (78/1017/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2), Whereas under Article 14 (2) (a) of Council Directive 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (3), as last amended by Council Directive 77/390/EEC (4), Member States may, during a period of five years from the time when the said Directive takes effect, grant temporary aids to farmers who are not capable of attaining the level of earned income laid down under Article 4 of that Directive and who are not yet eligible for the annuities provided for in Article 2 (1) of Council Directive 72/160/EEC of 17 April 1972 concerning measures to encourage the cessation of farming and the reallocation of utilized agricultural area for the purposes of structural improvement (5); Whereas, pending the re-examination of Directive 72/159/EEC provided for in Article 16 of the said Directive, the period of application of this measure was extended until 31 December 1977 by Directive 77/390/EEC; Whereas, since this re-examination is still in progress, it would seem appropriate to extend the period laid down in Article 14 (2) (a) of Directive 72/159/EEC until 31 December 1979 as regards the measures provided for under that Article in force in the Member States on 15 March 1977; Whereas the provision in the development plan for the farm to concentrate on the production of beef, veal, mutton or lamb may require differing efforts ; whereas the amounts fixed by Council Directive 73/131/EEC of 15 May 1973 on the guidance premium provided for in Article 10 of the Directive of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (6) should be changed into ceiling amounts, HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 The period laid down in Article 14 (2) (a) of Directive 72/159/EEC shall be extended until 31 December 1979 as regards the measures provided for under that Article in force in the Member States on 15 March 1977. Article 2 The second paragraph of Article 1 of Directive 73/131/EEC shall be replaced by the following: "The maximum amount of this premium shall be: - 48 units of account per hectare within a ceiling of 4 800 units of account per farm in the first year, - 32 75 units of account per hectare within a ceiling of 3 250 units of account per farm in the second year, - 16 75 units of account per hectare within a ceiling of 1 650 units of account per farm in the third year." Article 3 Article 1 shall take effect as from 1 January 1978. Article 4 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 24 November 1978.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1471/1999 of 5 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 347/96 establishing a system of rapid reporting of the release of salmon for free circulation in the European Community THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 of 17 December 1992 on the common organisation of the market in aquaculture and fisheries products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3318/94(2), and in particular Article 30 thereof, (1) Whereas by Regulation (EC) No 347/96(3) the Commission established a system of rapid reporting of the terms of importation of salmon on account of market disturbance and the imposition of a temporary minimum price; (2) Whereas following the conclusion of anti-dumping and anti-subsidies investigations, Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999(4) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1003/1999(5), imposes definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties and an effective minimum price by presentation of salmon, on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway; whereas these duties do not apply to wild Atlantic salmon falling within the same CN codes; (3) Whereas the duties do not apply to imports for farmed Atlantic salmon exported by the companies listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 772/1999, which are companies exempted from the duties on account of having offered price undertakings, which the Commission has accepted by Decision 97/634/EC(6) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999(7); (4) Whereas in order to improve the usefulness of the information communicated through the rapid reporting system and to allow monitoring of the undertakings and of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties, information relating to imports of salmon should be further broken down both by type and presentation and by exporting company in the case of Norway by amending Regulation (EC) No 347/96; (5) Whereas the list of undertakings has been repeatedly amended due to violations, withdrawals, or acceptance of new undertakings; whereas it is expected that similar amendments will occur in the future; (6) Whereas the technology now exists to send computer-generated data by electronic mail and therefore the form of transmission should be definitively introduced and the message format defined; whereas Regulation (EC) No 347/96 should be amended to this end; (7) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 347/96 is amended as follows: 1. in Article 1(1), a third sentence is added as follows: "For the list of Norwegian companies benefiting from undertakings, as provided by Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999(8), additional information on the goods released shall be notified in the form of TARIC code and TARIC additional code, as set out in the Annex, giving the imports by presentation for each company with an undertaking."; 2. in Article 1(2), the second sentence is replaced by the following: "The notification shall be sent to the Commission by electronic mail in the form indicated in Annex II."; 3. the Annex is replaced by the Annex to the present Regulation. Article 2 This regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 5 July 1999.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 3 June 1992 relating to the computer retrieval of local Animo units (92/341/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), as last amended by Directive 91/628/EEC (2), and in particular Article 20 (3) thereof, Whereas on 19 July 1991 the Commission adopted Decision 91/398/EEC on a computerized network linking veterinary authorities (Animo) (3) and on 21 February 1992, Decision 92/175/EEC establishing the list and identity of the units of the Animo computerized network (4); Whereas, in order to ensure the smooth operation of the Animo network, provision should be made for a computerized system allowing the unit of destination to be identified via the postal destinations; Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 1. Each Member State shall, before 15 June 1992, transmit to the Commission, in computerized form as shown in the Annex, a list of postal destinations in alphabetical order. Each postal destination shall be accompanied by the identification number of the local unit corresponding to it. 2. On the basis of the data transmitted by the Member States in accordance with paragraph 1, the Commission shall establish, in computerized form to be integrated in the application software as defined in the fourth indent of Article 2 (2) of Decision 91/398/EEC, a repertory showing, for the Community as a whole, the postal destinations accompanied by the identification number of the local units and shall transmit this repertory to the Member States. 3. The repertory referred to in paragraph 2 shall be regularly updated by the Commission in the light of data transmitted by the Member States. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 June 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 18 July 1996 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea (96/437/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Article 23 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1251/95 (3), and in particular Articles 5 and 9 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: I. PROCEDURE (1) In February 1995, the Commission received a complaint from three companies, Hoechst-Diafoil GmbH, Rhône-Poulenc Films and Teijin-DuPont Films, concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea. The three complainants allegedly represented 100 % of total PET video film output in the Community. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (4), the initiation of an antidumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea. (2) The Commission officially advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned; the representatives of the exporting country and the complainants and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing. II. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING (3) The complaining Community producers formally withdrew their complaint concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea. The Commission considered that a termination of the proceeding would not be against the interest of the Community. (4) Consequently, the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea should be terminated without adoption of protective measures. (5) The Advisory Committee has been consulted and has raised no objection. (6) Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to terminate the proceeding and have been given the opportunity to comment, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of PET video film originating in the Republic of Korea is hereby terminated. Done at Brussels, 18 July 1996.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof, Whereas: (1) In order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation. (2) Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has laid down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature. Those rules apply also to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods. (3) Pursuant to those general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex should be classified under the CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3. (4) It is appropriate to provide that binding tariff information which has been issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature but which is not in accordance with this Regulation can, for a period of three months, continue to be invoked by the holder, under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(2). (5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The goods described in column 1 of the table set out in the Annex shall be classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the CN codes indicated in column 2. Article 2 Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States, which is not in accordance with this Regulation, can continue to be invoked for a period of three months under Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 1 March 2004.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2233/92 of 31 July 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the specific premium for the maintenance of dairy herds in the Azores THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 24 (6) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 of 11 June 1985 on the value of the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2205/90 (3), and in particular Article 12 thereof, Whereas Article 24 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 provides for the granting of specific annual premiums for the maintenance of dairy herds in respect of up to 78 000 head; Whereas, in order to make verification of applications easier, the Member State in question should take the necessary measures to prevent the premium in question from being used for purposes other than those laid down and whereas there is provision for the Commission staff to be informed as to whether the scheme is working properly; Whereas the scheme introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 came into force on 1 July 1992; whereas the detailed rules for its application should take effect on the same date; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. In accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92, producers may qualify on application for a specific annual premium for the maintenance of their dairy herds. 2. The aid, amounting to ECU 80 per cow, shall be converted using the agricultural conversion rate applying on the first day of the month in which the premium application is submitted. 3. In order to qualify for the premium, producers must show to the satisfaction of the competent authority that they deliver milk and milk products from the holdings under their management on the day on which the application is submitted. In addition, the premium shall be granted subject to an undertaking by the recipient to: - deliver milk and milk products for 12 months from the day on which the application is submitted, - maintain the number of dairy cows on his holding in respect of which he has submitted a premium application on his holding for a period of 12 months. Article 2 Portugal shall take all measures necessary to ensure that: (a) premiums are granted in respect of no more than 78 000 cows; (b) a single period is fixed each year for the submission of premium applications; (c) detailed rules are laid down for monitoring the number of cows covered by applications; (d) other detailed rules, including rules to ensure that premiums are paid solely to dairy farmers, are laid down. Article 3 1. Where the number of animals actually shown to be eligible as a result of checks is less than that in respect of which premium applications have been submitted, no premium shall be paid, without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. 2. Where the reduction in the number of animals may be ascribed to natural circumstances affecting the life of the herd, premiums shall be paid in respect of the number of animals actually eligible provided that the recipient has notified the competent authority of the circumstances in writing within 10 days of the event in question. 3. Producers shall continue to qualify for the premium in respect of the number of animals actually eligible where they have been unable to fulfil the undertaking laid down in Article 2 for reasons of force majeure. Producers shall notify the competent authorities of the circumstances within 10 days of the event in question. 4. In cases other than those covered by paragraphs 2 and 3, where the difference between the number of animals actually eligible and the declared number is less than 5 % or one head at most if the number of declared animals is equal to or less than 20 head, premiums shall be paid in respect of the number of eligible animals, less 20 %, provided that, in the opinion of the competent authority, no false declaration submitted deliberately or through serious negligence is involved. 5. Amounts paid unduly shall be recovered, plus interest to be determined by the Member State running from the date of payment of the premium until its recovery. 6. Where paragraph 1 is applied, if the competent authority finds that a false declaration made deliberately or through serious negligence is involved, the producer in question shall not be eligible for the premium for 12 months from the date of such finding. Article 4 Portugal shall notify the Commission staff within three months of the entry into force of this Regulation of measures taken pursuant to Article 2, including the system of controls introduced. Article 5 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 July 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 31 July 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 636/2008 of 3 July 2008 on the issuing of export licences for wine-sector products THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 of 24 April 2001, laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards trade with third countries in products in the wine sector (1), and in particular Article 7 and Article 9(3) thereof, Whereas: (1) Article 63(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2), limits the grant of export refunds for wine-sector products to the volumes and expenditure contained in the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations. (2) Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 lays down the conditions under which the Commission may take specific measures to prevent an overrun of the quantity laid down or the budget available under the said Agreement. (3) On the basis of information on export licence applications available to the Commission on 2 July 2008, the quantity still available for the period until 31 July 2008, for destination zones (1) Africa and (3) eastern Europe, referred to in Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2001, could be exceeded unless the issue of export licences with advance fixing of the refund is restricted. Therefore, a single percentage for the acceptance of applications submitted from 1 July 2008 should be applied and the submission of applications and the issue of licences suspended for this zone until 1 August 2008, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. Export licences with advance fixing of the refund for wine-sector products for which applications are submitted from 1 July 2008 under Regulation (EC) No 883/2001 shall be issued in concurrence with 13,69 % of the quantities requested for zone (1) Africa and in concurrence with 70,24 % of the quantities requested for zone (3) eastern Europe. 2. The issue of export licences for wine-sector products referred to in paragraph 1 for which applications are submitted from 2 July 2008 and the submission of export licence applications from 4 July 2008 for destination zones (1) Africa and (3) eastern Europe shall be suspended until 1 August 2008. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 July 2008. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 July 2008.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Decision of 20 November 2001 concerning a request for exemption submitted by France pursuant to Article 8(2)(c) of Council Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (notified under document number C(2001) 3650) (Only the French text is authentic) (2001/821/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers(1), as last amended by Directive 2000/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 8(2)(c) thereof, Whereas: (1) The request for exemption submitted by France on 7 May 2001, which reached the Commission on 11 May 2001, contains the information required by Article 8(2)(c) of Directive 70/156/EEC. The request concerns the installation of an autonomous cruise control system and/or an electronic stability program system on class M1 vehicles. (2) The reasons given in the request, according to which such equipment does not meet the requirements of the directives concerned, in particular those of Council Directive 71/320/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the braking devices of certain categories of motor vehicles and of their trailers(3), as last amended by Commission Directive 98/12/EC(4), and those of Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers(5), as last amended by Commission Directive 97/28/EC(6), are well founded. (3) The Community directives concerned should be amended in order to permit the approval and placing on the market of class M1 vehicles fitted with an autonomous cruise control system and an electronic stability program system. (4) Aspects relating to vehicle safety are covered by compliance with the special requirements to be applied to the safety aspects of complex electronic vehicle control systems of the future Annex 18 to EEC/UNO Regulation No 13.09 on braking. (5) Consequently, the request for an exemption can be approved. (6) The measure provided for by this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Adaptation to Technical Progress set up by Directive 70/156/EEC, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 In accordance with Article 8(2)(c) of Directive 70/156/EEC, the request submitted by France for an exemption relating to the approval and placing on the market of M1 class vehicles fitted with an autonomous cruise control system and/or an electronic stability program system, is approved. Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Republic of France. Done at Brussels, 20 November 2001.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 10/2007 of 9 January 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 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 the Annex thereto. (2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 January 2007. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 9 January 2007.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1215/76 of 4 May 1976 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 on notifying the Commission of investment projects of interest to the Community in the petroleum, natural gas and electricity sectors THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 5 and 213 thereof, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 187 and 192 thereof, Having regard to the draft from the Commission, Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2), Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 (3) provides that Member States shall communicate to the Commission at the beginning of each year information concerning investment projects relating to the production, transport, storage or distribution of petroleum, natural gas or electric power which are scheduled to start within three years from 1 January of the current year; Whereas experience has shown that, because of the technical, financial, industrial and social aspects of investment projects in the electricity sector, there is a growing tendency to formulate such projects at least five years before the expected commencement of work; Whereas it is therefore necessary to ensure that the Commission is notified of investment projects in the electricity sector on which work is expected to commence within five years from 1 January of the current year; Whereas experience has shown that the Commission was not notified of some investment projects because one or more of their major features was subject to further review; Whereas Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 provides that certain features of investment projects communicated to the Commission shall be indicated; Whereas experience has shown that in order to assess the significance of an investment project the Commission needs to know what stage decisions on it have reached and its place in national plans; Whereas experience has shown that the list of investment projects set out in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 is not sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that the Commission has adequate information for carrying out its task in connection with the Community's common energy policy, particularly in the petroleum refining and electric power generation and transmission sectors; Whereas, in the case of petroleum refining, investment in desulphurization plants for residues, gas oil and feedstock is of increasing importance in view of the strict quality standards to be adopted within the Community in order to control pollution; Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 does not extend to investment in the electricity sector relating to nuclear electricity generating plants; (1)OJ No C 280, 8.12.1975, p. 58. (2)OJ No C 35, 16.2.1976, p. 22. (3)OJ No L 120, 25.5.1972, p. 7. Whereas Articles 41 and 42 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community provide that the Commission must receive notification of any kind of nuclear investment project not later than three months before the first contracts are concluded with the suppliers or three months before the work begins ; whereas this means that notification of projects is given when they are at a very advanced stage and then only at the initiative of and on the date chosen by the person or undertaking making the investment; Whereas the establishment of a common energy policy is one of the agreed objectives of the Community and the Commission has been instructed to propose measures for the attainment of this objective ; whereas, if the objectives set out in the Council resolution of 17 December 1974 concerning Community energy policy objectives for 1985 (1), the Council resolution of 17 December 1974 on a Community action programme on the rational utilization of energy (2) and the Council resolution of 13 February 1975 concerning measures to be implemented to achieve the Community energy policy objectives adopted by the Council on 17 December 1974 (3) are to be achieved, greater use must be made of the Community's industrial potential, particularly in the nuclear sector; Whereas in order to assist manufacturing industry in undertaking the investment and adjustments necessary for the supply of heavy plant under the investment programmes relating to electric power supplies, the Commission must be informed of the projects involved in these programmes sufficiently far in advance of their implementation to be able to provide industry with information - the exact form varying according to the degree of final commitment reached with regard to the construction plans - which will enable an accurate assessment to be made of the technical, financial and social risks involved; Whereas, in the electricity sector, investment projects relating to underground and sub-marine transmission cables, which constitute essential links in national or international interconnecting networks, are of interest to the Community ; whereas the Commission needs information on such projects to enable it to carry out its task in the electricity sector ; whereas provision should be made to ensure that such projects are communicated to the Commission, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The following shall be substituted for Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72: "1. Member States shall, before 15 February of each year, communicate to the Commission the information they have obtained on the basis of the provisions of paragraph 2 concerning investment projects listed in the Annex which relate to the production, transport, storage or distribution of petroleum, natural gas or electric power and on which work is scheduled to start within three years, in the case of projects in the petroleum and natural gas sectors, or within five years, in the case of projects in the electricity sector ; the notifications must take account of the latest developments in the situation. Member States shall add to their notifications any comments they may have." Article 2 The following paragraph shall be added to Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72: "5. The notifications provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall also cover investment projects of which the major features (location, contractor, undertaking, technical features, etc.) may, in whole or in part, be subject to further review or to final authorization by a competent authority." Article 3 The following shall be added to Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 after the fifth indent: "In the case of investment projects which are at the planning stage, the notifications shall include the following information on the stage reached in the decisions on each project: - whether or not firm decisions have been taken concerning all the major features of the project (location, contractor, undertaking, technical features, etc.), - what the place of the project is in national plans." (1)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 2. (2)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 5. (3)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 6. Article 4 The following shall be added to point 1.1 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72 after the third indent: "- desulphurization plants for residual fuel oils/gas oil/feedstock." Article 5 The following shall be substituted for point 3.1, first indent, of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72: "- thermal power stations (generators with a unit capacity of 200 MW or more)." Article 6 The following shall be substituted for point 3.2 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1056/72: "3.2 Transport - overhead transmission lines, if they have been designed for a voltage of 345 kV or more; - underground and sub-marine transmission cables, if they have been designed for a voltage of 100 kV or more and constitute essential links in national or international interconnecting networks." This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 4 May 1976.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1879/94 of 27 July 1994 fixing the amount of aid in respect of silkworms for the 1994/95 rearing year THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 of 24 April 1972 laying down special measures to encourage silkworm rearing (1), and in particular Article 2 (3) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (2), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (3), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (4), Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 provides that the amount of aid for silkworms reared within the Community must be fixed each year in such a way as to help ensure a fair income for silkworm rearers, taking into account the state of the market in cocoons and raw silk, of foreseeable trends on that market and of import policy; Whereas application of the abovementioned criteria entails fixing the amount of aid at the level mentioned below, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 For the 1994/95 rearing year, the amount of aid in respect of silkworms as referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 shall be fixed at ECU 110,41 per box of silkworm eggs used. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply with effect from 1 April 1994. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 27 July 1994.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 737/94 of 30 March 1994 on the sale of beef at prices fixed at a flat rate in advance held by certain intervention agencies and intended for supplying the Canary Islands and repealing Regulation (EC) No 384/94 THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3611/93 (2), and in particular Article 7 (3) thereof, Whereas certain intervention agencies hold substantial stocks of beef bought into intervention; whereas an extension of the storage period for that beef should be avoided on account of the ensuing high costs; Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1912/92 of 10 July 1992 laying down detailed implementing rules for the specific measures for supplying the Canary Islands with products from the beef and veal sector (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 577/94 (4), lays down the forecast supply balance for frozen meat of bovine animals for the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994; whereas, in the light of traditional trade patterns, it is appropriate to release intervention beef for the purpose of supplying the Canary Islands during that period; Whereas Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1695/92 of 30 June 1992 laying down common detailed rules for implementation of the specific arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products to the Canary Islands (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2596/93 (6), provides for the use of aid certificates delivered by the competent Spanish authorities for supplies from the Community; whereas the potential purchaser should be obliged to submit an aid certificate to the intervention agency at the same time as the application to purchase from intervention; whereas, in order to improve the operation of the abovementioned arrangements, certain derogations from Regulation (EEC) No 1912/92 should be provided for, in particular, with regard to the payment of aid and the security for aid certificates; whereas the support arrangements for the supply of the Canary Islands from intervention stocks provided for in Article 3 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 (7), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1974/93 (8), should be simplified by including the aid in the sale prices set in this Regulation; Whereas for the purpose of purchase and control procedures, it is appropriate to apply certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79 of 4 October 1979 on detailed rules of application for the disposal of beef bought in by intervention agencies and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 216/69 (9), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1759/93 (10), and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 of 16 October 1992 laying down common detailed rules for verifying the use and/or destination of products from intervention (11), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1938/93 (12); Whereas it is necessary to provide for the lodging of a security to guarantee that the beef arrives at the intended destination; Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/94 (13) should be repealed; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. A sale shall be organized of approximately: (a) - 1 706 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Irish intervention agency, - 2 000 tonnes of boneless beef held by the United Kingdom intervention agency, - 1 000 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Danish intervention agency, - 500 tonnes of boneless beef held by the French intervention agency. (b) - 500 tonnes of bone-in beef hindquarters held by the French intervention agency and bought in under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, (c) - 151 tonnes of bone-in hindquarters held by the Danish intervention agency and bought in under Article 6a (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68. 2. This meat shall be sold for delivery to the Canary Islands. 3. The qualities and selling prices of the products are given in Annex I hereto. Article 2 1. Subject to the provisions of this Regulation, the sale shall take place in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79, and in particular, Articles 2 to 5 thereof, and in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92. 2. The intervention agencies shall sell those products which have been in storage longest first. Particulars of the quantities and places where the products are stored shall be made available to interested parties at the addresses given in Annex II. Article 3 1. A purchase application shall only be valid when accompanied by an aid certificate covering at least the quantity concerned and issued pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 1695/92 and (EEC) No 1912/92. 2. Notwithstanding Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1695/92, aid shall not be paid for intervention beef sold pursuant to this Regulation. 3. Notwithstanding Article 4 (4) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1695/92, in box 24 of the aid certificate application and of the aid certificate shall be entered: 'Aid certificate for use in the Canary Islands - no aid to be paid.' 4. Notwithstanding Article 6 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1912/92, the security laid down for aid certificates shall be ECU 2 per 100 kilograms. Article 4 Notwithstanding the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79, purchase applications shall not indicate the store or stores where the meat applied for is being kept. Article 5 1. Notwithstanding Article 15 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79, the security shall be ECU 100 per tonne. 2. A security of ECU 2 500 per tonne of bone-in beef and of ECU 3 000 per tonne of boneless beef to guarantee delivery to the Canary Islands shall be lodged by the purchaser before taking over the meat concerned. The guarantee for fillets, however, shall be ECU 7 000 per tonne. Delivery of the products concerned to the Canary Islands shall be a primary requirement within the meaning of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (14). Article 6 In the removal order referred to in Article 3 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 3002/92 and the T 5 control copy shall be entered: « Carne de intervención destinada a las islas Canarias - Sin ayuda [Reglamento (CE) no 737/94] »; »Interventionskoed til De Kanariske OEer - uden stoette (Forordning (EF) nr. 737/94]«; "Interventionsfleisch fuer die Kanarischen Inseln - ohne Beihilfe (Verordnung (EG) Nr. 737/94]"; «Kreas apo tin paremvasi gia tis Kanarioys Nisoys - choris enischyseis [Kanonismos (EK) arith. 737/94]»; 'Intervention meat for the Canary Islands - without the payment of aid [Regulation (EC) No 737/94]'; « Viandes d'intervention destinées aux îles Canaries - Sans aide [règlement (CE) no 737/94] »; « Carni in regime d'intervento destinate alle isole Canarie - senza aiuto [Regolamento (CE) n. 737/94] »; "Interventievlees voor de Canarische eilanden - zonder steun (Verordening (EG) nr. 737/94)"; « Carne de intervençao destinada às ilhas Canárias - sem ajuda [Regulamento (CE) nº 737/94] ». Article 7 Regulation (EC) No 384/94 is hereby repealed. Article 8 This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 April 1994. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 30 March 1994.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1495/2000 of 10 July 2000 establishing the quantities to be allocated to importers from the Community quantitative quotas redistributed by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1138/98(2), Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 520/94 of 7 March 1994 establishing a Community procedure for administering quantitative quotas(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 138/96(4) and in particular Articles 9 and 13 thereof, Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 of 27 April 2000 redistributing the unused portions of the 1999 quantitative quotas for certain products originating in the People's Republic of China(5), and in particular Article 6 thereof, Whereas: (1) Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 established the portion of each of the quotas concerned reserved for traditional and other importers and the conditions and methods for participating in the allocation of the quantities available. Importers lodged applications for import licences with the competent national authorities between 3 and 26 May 2000, at 3 p.m., Brussels time, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 849/2000. (2) The Commission has received from the Member States under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 particulars of the numbers and aggregate volume of import licence applications submitted and the total volume imported by traditional importers in 1997 or 1998, the reference year. (3) The Commission is now able, on the basis of that information, to establish uniform quantitative criteria by which the competent national authorities may satisfy licence applications submitted by importers in the Member States for the quantitative quotas redistributed by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000; (4) Examination of the figures supplied by Member States shows that the aggregate volume of the applications submitted by traditional importers for the products listed in Annex I to this Regulation exceeds the portion of the quota set aside for them. The applications must therefore be met by applying the uniform rate of reduction/increase shown in Annex I to the imports, expressed in volume terms, of each importer over the reference period. (5) Examination of the figures supplied by Member States shows that the aggregate volume of applications submitted by non-traditional importers for the products listed in Annex II to this Regulation exceeds the portion of the quota set aside for them. The applications must therefore be met by applying the uniform rate of reduction shown in Annex II to the amounts requested by each importer, as limited by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 In response to licence applications in respect of the products listed in Annex I duly submitted by traditional importers, the competent national authorities shall allocate each importer a quantity equal to its imports for 1997 or 1998, adjusted by the rate of reduction/increase specified in the said Annex for each quota. Where the use of this quantitative criterion would entail allocating an amount greater than that applied for, the quantity allocated shall be limited to that specified in the application. Article 2 In response to licence applications in respect of the products listed in Annex II duly submitted by non-traditional importers, the competent national authorities shall allocate each importer a quantity equal to the amount requested within the limits set by Regulation (EC) No 849/2000 adjusted by the rate of reduction specified in the said Annex for each quota. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 10 July 2000.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1446/1999 of 24 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 858/94 introducing a system for the statistical monitoring of trade in bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) within the Community THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2), Whereas (1) in the context of measures to regulate stocks of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) adopted by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called the "ICCAT", to which the Community is a party, a system for the statistical monitoring of catches and imports of bluefin tuna has been implemented by the contracting parties; to that end, the necessary measures were adopted in Regulation (EC) No 858/94(3); (2) to facilitate management of this system by the Community and its Member States, at its tenth extraordinary meeting, held in San Sebastian in November 1996, the ICCAT adopted a recommendation enabling Member States to authenticate the statistical documents relating to catches of bluefin tuna made by vessels flying the flag of another Member State; (3) to supplement the arrangements for managing stocks of bluefin tuna, at its 15th ordinary meeting, held in Madrid from 14 to 21 November 1997, the ICCAT adopted a recommendation extending the statistical monitoring system to re-exports of bluefin tuna; to this end, the rules governing the various types of commercial operations including one or more re-exports to or from the customs territory of the Community must be established, and a model re-export licence provided to this end; (4) implementation of these measures by the Community requires Regulation (EC) No 858/94 to be amended; at the same time the list of third countries in point 2 of Annex II to that Regulation should be updated, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 858/94 is amended as follows: (1) the following indent shall be added to Article 1: "- re-exports to third countries of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) falling within CN codes ex 0302 39, ex 0303 49, ex 0304 20 45, ex 1604 14 16 and ex 1604 14 18." (2) the following Article shall be inserted after Article 2: "Article 2a 1. All quantities of bluefin tuna caught by a vessel flying the flag of a Member State and exported to a third country shall be accompanied by the statistical document in Annex I. 2. Statistical documents drawn up pursuant to paragraph 1 may be authenticated by the competent authorities of the Member States whose flag the vessels flies or by those of a different Member State where the products concerned are landed, provided the corresponding quantities of bluefin tuna are exported outside the Community from the territory of the Member State of landing. 3. Without prejudice to Article 5(1), Member States which authenticate statistical documents pursuant to paragraph 1 shall inform the Member State whose flag the vessels flies by forwarding to them a copy of the documents they have authenticated within two months of the date of authentication. 4. Once this Regulation enters into force, each Member State shall communicate to the Commission the information on its competent authorities referred to in paragraph 2; the Commission shall forward this information to the other Member States." (3) the following paragraph shall be added to Article 3: "4. All quantities of bluefin tuna imported into the Community market after having been re-exported by a third country must be accompanied by a re-export licence in accordance with Annex III. The re-export licence must have been completed, signed and authenticated in accordance with the procedures laid down in paragraph 2 for the statistical document; it shall then be supplied to the competent authorities of the Member State where the product is imported." (4) the following Article shall be inserted after Article 3: "Article 3a 1. All quantities of bluefin tuna re-exported to a third country after having been imported into the Community must be accompanied by a re-export licence in accordance with Annex III. 2. The sections of the re-export licence which concern them shall be completed and signed by the relevant traders, who shall be responsible for the statements made. Re-export licences must be accompanied by a duly authenticated copy of the original statistical document as referred to in Article 3. 3. Re-export licences shall be authenticated by the competent authorities of the Member State from which the re-export is to take place. 4. Re-exports of bluefin tuna which have already been re-exported shall require a new re-export licence to be drawn up and authenticated; in such cases, the duly authenticated copies of the statistical documents and the original re-export licences accompanying the product must be attached to the new licence." (5) the following indent shall be added to Article 5(1): "- the quantities of each commercial presentation of bluefin tuna entered each half-year for free circulation in its territory after having been re-exported from a third country, broken down by country of origin." (6) point 2 of Annex II shall be replaced by the text appearing in Annex I to this Regulation; (7) Annex III appearing in Annex II to this Regulation shall be added. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 1999.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1637/87 of 9 June 1987 opening, allocating and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for certain wines having a registered designation of origin, falling within subheading ex 22.05 C of the Common Customs Tariff and originating in Morocco (1987/1988) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas Article 21 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (1) stipulates that certain wines having a registered designation of origin, falling within subheading ex 22.05 C of the Common Customs Tariff and originating in Morocco, specified in the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters of 12 March 1977 (2), shall be imported into the Community free of customs duties within the limits of an annual Community tariff quota of 50 000 hectolitres; whereas these wines must be put up in containers holding two litres or less; whereas the tariff quota in question should therefore be opened for the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988; Whereas, pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 449/86 of 24 February 1986 determining the arrangements to be applied by the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to trade with certain third countries (3), the provisions applicable by the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to trade with Morocco are subject to the tariff treatment and other trade rules applied to third countries enjoying most-favoured-nation treatment; whereas, therefore, this Regulation applies only to the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985; Whereas the wines in question are subject to compliance with the free-at-frontier price; whereas the wines in question may benefit from this tariff quota on condition that Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3805/85 (5), is complied with; Whereas it is in particular necessary to ensure equal and uninterrupted access for all Community importers to the abovementioned quota, and uninterrupted application of the rates laid down for this quota to all imports of the products concerned into the Member States until the quota has been used up; whereas, having regard to the above principles, the Community nature of the quota can be respected by allocating the Community tariff quota among the Member States; whereas, in order to reflect most accurately the actual development of the market in the products in question, such allocation should be in proportion to the requirements of the Member States, assessed by reference to both the statistics relating to imports of the said products from Morocco over a representative reference period and the economic outlook for the quota period concerned; Whereas in this case, however, neither Community nor national statistics showing the breakdown for each of the types of wines in question are available and no reliable estimates of future imports can be made; whereas, in these circumstances, the quota volume should be allocated in initial shares, taking into account demand for these wines on the markets of the various Member States; Whereas, to take account of import trends for the products concerned in the various Member States, the quota amount should be divided into two instalments, the first being allocated among the Member States and the second held as a reserve intended to cover at a later date the requirements of Member States who have used up their initial share; whereas in order to guarantee some degree of security to importers in each Member State, the first instalment of the Community quota should be fixed at a level which could, in the present circumstances, be 30 % of the quota volume; Whereas the initial shares of the Member States may be used up at different rates; whereas, in order to take this into account and to avoid a break in continuity, any Member State which has used up almost all of its initial share should draw an additional share from the reserve; whereas this should be done by each Member State each time one of its additional shares is almost used up, and so on as many times as the reserve allows; whereas the initial and additional shares must be valid until the end of the quota period; whereas this form of administration requires close collaboration between the Member States and the Commission, and the Commission must be in a position to follow the extent to which the quota volume has been used up and inform the Member States thereof; Whereas, if at a given date in the quota period a substantial quantity of its initial share remains unused in any Member State, it is essential that it should return a significant proportion thereof to the reserve, to prevent part of the Community quota remaining unused in one Member State when it could be used in others; Whereas, since the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are united within and jointly represented by the Benelux Economic Union, all transactions concerning the administration of the shares allocated to that economic union may be carried out by any one of its members, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. From 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988 the customs duty applicable on import into the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 of the following products shall be suspended at the level and within the limits of a Community tariff quota as follows: 1.2.3.4.5 // // // // // // Order No // CCT heading No // Description // Amount of tariff quota (hectolitres) // Rate of duty (%) // // // // // // 09.1107 // 22.05 // Wine of fresh grapes; grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol: // // // // // C. Other: // // // // // - Wines entitled to one of the following designations of origin: // // // // // Berkane, Sais, Beni M'Tir, Guerrouane, Zemmour, Zennata of an actual alcoholic strength, not exceeding 15 % vol, in containers holding two litres or less, originating in Morocco // 50 000 hectolitres // free // // // // // 2. The wines in question shall be subject to compliance with the free-at-frontier reference price. The wines in question shall benefit from this tariff quota on condition that Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 is complied with. 3. Each of these wines, when imported, shall be accompanied by a certificate of designation of origin, issued by the relevant Moroccan authority, in accordance with the model annexed to this Regulation. Article 2 1. The tariff quota laid in Article 1 shall be divided into two instalments. 2. A first instalment of the quota shall be allocated among the Member States; the shares which, subject to Article 5, shall be valid up to 30 June 1988, shall be as follows: 1.2 // // (hectolitres) // Benelux // 2 400 // Denmark // 1 410 // Germany // 3 000 // Greece // 570 // France // 2 790 // Ireland // 1 020 // Italy // 1 410 // United Kingdom // 2 400 3. The second instalment of the quota, amounting to 35 000 hectolitres, shall constitute the reserve. Article 3 1. If 90 % or more of a Member State's initial share, as specified in Article 2 (2), or of that share less the portion returned to the reserve where Article 5 has been applied, has been used up, that Member State shall, without delay, by notifying the Commission, draw a second share equal to 15 % of its initial share, rounded up were necessary to the next whole number, in so far as the amount in the reserve allows. 2. If, after its initial share has been used up, 90 % or more of the second share drawn by a Member State has been used up, that Member State shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, draw a third share equal to 7,5 % of its initial share. 3. If, after its second share has been used up, 90 % or more of the third share drawn by a Member State has been used up, that Member State shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1, draw a fourth share equal to the third. This process shall continue to apply until the reserve is used up. 4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Member States may draw smaller shares than those fixed in these paragraphs if there is reason to believe that those fixed might not be used up. They shall inform the Commission of their grounds for applying this paragraph. Article 4 The additional share drawn pursuant to Article 3 shall be valid until 30 June 1988. Article 5 Member States shall return to the reserve, not later than 1 April 1988, such unused portion of their initial share which, on 15 March 1988, is in excess of 20 % of the initial amount. They may return a greater quantity if there are grounds for believing that this quantity might not be used in full. Member States shall notify the Commission, not later than 1 April 1988, of the total imports of the products concerned effected under the Community quotas up to and including 15 March 1988, and, where appropriate, the proportion of their initial share that they are returning to the reserve. Article 6 The Commission shall keep an account of the shares opened by Member States pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 and, as soon as it has been notified, shall inform each Member State of the extent to which the reserve has been used up. It shall notify the Member States, not later than 5 April 1988, of the state of the reserve after quantities have been returned thereto pursuant to Article 5. It shall ensure that the drawing which uses up the reserve is limited to the balance available and, to this end, shall specify the amount thereof to the Member State making the final drawing. Article 7 1. Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that additional shares drawn pursuant to Article 3 are opened in such a way that imports may be charged without interruption against their aggregate shares in the Community quota. 2. Member States shall ensure that importers of the products concerned have free access to the shares allocated to them. 3. The Member States shall charge the imports of the products concerned against their share as and when the products are entered with customs authorities for free circulation. 4. The extent to which a Member State has used up its shares shall be determined on the basis of the imports charged in accordance with paragraph 3. Article 8 At the request of the Commission, Member States shall inform it of imports actually charged against their shares. Article 9 The Member States and the Commission shall collaborate closely in order to ensure that this Regulation is obeserved. Article 10 This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1987. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 9 June 1987.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Decision of 3 February 2004 on the implementation of the Preparatory Action on the Enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research (2004/213/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Commission Decision 2003/113 final of 11 March 2003 adopting a Communication "European Defence - Industrial and Market Issues - Towards an EU Defence Equipment Policy"(1), and in particular Item 5, Having regard to Article 157, point 1, fourth indent of the Treaty (fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development), HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The Commission is launching a Preparatory Action on the Enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research (2004-2006) as referred to in the Commission Communication on "Implementation of the Preparatory Action on the Enhancement of the European industrial potential in the field of security research: Towards a programme to advance European security through Research and Technology". The Activities and Programme of Work for the Preparatory Action are part of the Communication (Section II) and form the basis for subsequent calls for proposals and calls for tenders. Article 2 Details for the Implementation of this Preparatory Action are set out in the Annex. The budget line for this activity is 08 14 01. Done at Brussels, 3 February 2004.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL DECISION of 6 December 1994 concerning the continuance of the Handynet system in the framework of the activities undertaken to date on the first technical aids module (94/782/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3), Whereas the principal objective of Council Decision 93/136/EEC of 25 February 1993 establishing a third Community action programme to assist disabled people (Helios II 1993 to 1996) (4) is to promote equal opportunities for, and the integration of, disabled people; whereas one of the general objectives is to meet the information needs of disabled people by means of the Handynet computerized information and documentation system based on data collected at national level and updated and adapted at European level; Whereas, under the Helios II programme, the Commission, in accordance with Decision 93/136/EEC, has collected, adapted at European level, updated, exchanged and disseminated information on technical aids collected in the Member States; Whereas, in accordance with Article 4 (1) (b) of Decision 93/136/EEC, the Council is to re-examine the Handynet system, before 31 December 1994, on the basis of a Commission report evaluating, inter alia, the first module on technical aids of this system and, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, is to decide on the conditions for continuing the system after that date; Whereas the Commission has presented a report on the application of the Handynet system; whereas the system should be continued in the framework of the activities undertaken to date on the first technical aids module; Whereas the Treaty does not provide, for the adoption of this Decision, powers other than those of Article 235, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The Handynet computerized information and documentation system of the Helios II programme shall be continued from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1996 in the framework of the activities undertaken to date on the first technical aids module. Article 2 This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Done at Brussels, 6 December 1994.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 26 September 2006 concerning the State aid granted by the Netherlands to Holland Malt BV (notified under document number C(2006) 4196) (Only the Dutch text is authentic) (2007/59/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments (1) pursuant to the provision(s) cited above and having regard to their comments, Whereas: I. PROCEDURE (1) The measure was notified in accordance with Article 88 (3) of the EC Treaty by letter of 31 March 2004, registered on 6 April 2004. (2) By letters of 1 June 2004, 12 August 2004 and 16 February 2005, the Commission asked the Netherlands for further information. By letters dated 5 July 2004, 17 December 2004 and 15 March 2005, registered as received on 7 July 2004, 3 January 2005 and 23 March 2005 respectively, the Netherlands replied to the Commission's requests. (3) By letter dated 5 May 2005, the Commission informed the Netherlands of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty concerning this aid measure. (4) The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2). The Commission requested the interested parties to submit their comments on the aid measure in question. (5) By letter dated 10 June 2005 the Netherlands submitted a series of comments. (6) The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to the Netherlands, which was given the opportunity to react; the Netherlands' comments were received by the Commission by letter dated 14 October 2005. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID MEASURE (7) The Netherlands has decided to grant a subsidy to Holland Malt BV under a regional investment scheme ‘Regionale investeringsprojecten 2000’ (hereinafter called the IPR scheme). The regional investment scheme was approved by the Commission in 2000 (3); on 18 February 2002 an amendment to the scheme was also approved (4), whereby the IPR scheme was applied to the sectors processing and selling agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty. (8) The present case concerns a subsidy for an investment project of Holland Malt BV. Holland Malt BV, hereinafter referred to as ‘Holland Malt’, is a joint venture between the brewery Bavaria NV and Agrifirm, a cooperative association of cereal producers in North Netherlands and Germany. The subsidy is for building a malting plant in Eemshaven, in the municipality of Eemsmond. As a result of the investment, the various stages (storage and processing of malting barley and the production of and trade in malt) will be integrated in one chain. (9) The Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs has decided to subsidize 13,5 % gross (10 % net) of the eligible investments of EUR 55 million, with a maximum of EUR 7 425 000. Because it concerns a subsidy for an investment project by an undertaking in the sector processing and marketing agricultural products mentioned in Annex I of the Treaty, and the eligible costs of the project are over EUR 25 million, the aid must be specifically notified to the Commission under point 4.2.6 of the Community guidelines for state aid in the agriculture sector (5) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the guidelines’). (10) The decision by Holland Malt to invest was taken after the Dutch government had committed itself to granting a subsidy by letter dated 23 December 2003. The commitment was entered into subject to approval of the aid by the European Commission. The building activities of Holland Malt in Eemshaven started in February 2004. The plant became operational in April 2005. (11) In initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty, the Commission had regard to the following: (12) Having established that the measure at this stage would appear to be state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, the Commission investigated whether there were any derogations which meant that the measure could be considered compatible with the common market. (13) In view of the measure's characteristics, the only possible derogation is that in Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, under which aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered compatible with the common market. (14) As the aid was linked to an investment in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, the Commission had to verify whether all requirements of point 4.2 of the guidelines were fulfilled. The Commission doubted the applicability of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, for the following reasons: (15) Point 4.2.5 of the guidelines states that no aid may be granted for investments in connection with the processing and marketing of agricultural products unless sufficient evidence can be produced that normal market outlets for the products concerned can be found. On the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time of the opening of the procedure, it could not be excluded that the malt market showed overcapacity. (16) Holland Malt argued that it provided ‘premium malt’ of high quality for the production of ‘premium beer’ and that the market for this kind of malt and beer was still growing. However, at the time of the opening of the procedure, it was not clear whether ‘premium malt’ and ‘premium beer’ were not simply marketing concepts and therefore did not correspond to a specific separate product market for which overcapacity could be excluded. III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES (17) The Commission received comments from - the Finnish Maltsters' Association - the Maltsters's Association of Great Britain - the German Maltsters' association - the French Maltsters' Association - the Danish Maltsters' Association - an interested party which on grounds of potential damage requested that its identity be withheld - the Dutch Agriculture and Horticulture Organisation (LTO Nederland) - Agrifirm - Holland Malt - the Dutch province of Groningen. (18) The Finnish Maltsters' Association opposes the Netherlands' intention to grant a subsidy to Holland Malt B.V, saying that state subsidies for malting plant investments will have an anti-competitive impact. It mentions that the overcapacity in the malting industry in the Community is about one million tonnes, which would necessitate a closure of 10 % of the capacity during the coming years. As for Holland Malt's claim that it provides ‘premium malt’ for the production of ‘premium beer’, the Finnish Maltsters' Association mentions that existing malting houses in the Community can already serve the market with a wide range of malts including high quality ‘premium malt’. (19) The Maltsters Association of Great Britain strongly believes that any state aid for malting must by expressly prohibited. It refers to a letter of 2004 from Euromalt, the European association representing the malting industry, to the Commission, in which the association expresses its concern that no new malting capacity should receive state funding due to the existing overcapacity of malt production in both the Community and the world market (6). According to the association, the Member States have a malting capacity of 8,8 million tonnes, with demand at about 5,9 million tonnes. This leaves a potential Community export surplus of 2,9 million tonnes to serve a global market in which 4,3 million tonnes are traded annually. Community malt export licences were issued in the 2003/2004 marketing year for a total of 2,48 million tonnes. In the marketing year ending June 2005, this fell to 2,22 million tonnes, reflecting the difficult market situation and limited market opportunities for Community maltsters. The Maltsters' Association of Great Britain estimates that the surplus of malt in the Community is 500 000 tonnes, which is expected to grow to nearly one million tonnes due to a combination of new capacity still to come on stream and reduced export demand from Russia and Eastern Europe as those areas have become virtually self-sufficient. According to the Maltsters' Association of Great Britain, the effect of this overcapacity has been that, in the current market for malt, prices have fallen to a level where variable costs are no longer covered. The Maltsters Association of Great Britain furthermore contests the notion that the new Dutch capacity has been built to produce premium malt for premium markets. There has been significant consolidation in the brewing industry and the majority of maltsters' customers want only high-quality malt that meets their exacting (and often global) specifications and satisfies all food safety requirements. To divide the malt market into premium and non-premium sectors defies reality, according to the Maltsters Association of Great Britain. (20) The German Maltsters' Association is very concerned about the intention of the Netherlands to grant an investment subsidy for the establishment of a production plant for malt in the province of Groningen. According to the German Maltsters' Association, exports from the Community to traditional sales areas such as the Mercosur countries and Russia/Ukraine will decline markedly due to the development of an own malting industry and protection against imports. In addition, overseas competitors such as Canada and Australia are doing extremely well because of their proximity to the still growing beer markets of the Far East and South-East Asia and because of their governments' liberal trade policies. Simultaneously, malt sales in the internal market are stagnating, leading to an EU overcapacity in the Community of around one million tonnes. The German Maltsters' association considers that the promotion of local malting barley production is not a proper argument. It points out that the entire Dutch production of malting barley is already bought by the malting industry and that the new production plant in Groningen will depend on barley imports. (21) The French Maltsters' Association is against any state aid for new malting factories in the Community. It refers to the same letter from Euromalt as the Maltsters' Association of Great Britain and mentions the same production, import and export figures for malt. It also states that malt is currently being traded at prices at which variable costs are not covered. According to the French Maltsters' Association, justifying the state aid for the Dutch investment by referring to a separate market for high-quality malt is not correct, since the majority of brewers ask for such high quality malt. Finally the French Maltsters' Association is of the opinion that the Community malting industry would actually have to close obsolete malting plants to improve market conditions. (22) The Danish Maltsters' Association objects to the planned subsidy for Holland Malt. According to the Association, the malting industry worldwide is based on free market conditions. It is characterised by private ownership, its development being driven by private investments made by companies in the malting sector. A subsidy of EUR 7,4 million out of a total investment of EUR 55 million would distort competition and give an unjustified comparative advantage for the company receiving such a subsidy, especially in the first years after commissioning. The Danish Maltsters' Association furthermore objects to the argument whereby ‘premium malt’ is distinguished from ‘normal malt’. Malt is a generic product, with slight variations, but subject to quality standards imposed by the brewing industry. Lastly, the Danish Maltsters' Association does not see any local or regional reasons to subsidise the investment in the Eemsmond region, which is, in its view, a normal developed region in the Netherlands with an infrastructure that is closely associated with the barley and malt supply chain. (23) The interested party which on grounds of potential damage requested that its identity be withheld objects to the subsidy for the following reasons. It considers a distinction between premium and normal malt artificial, does not see any local or regional reasons to subsidise the investment and considers that the subsidy would distort competition on the malt market, which is characterised by private ownership and private investments. (24) The Dutch Agriculture and Horticulture Organisation (LTO Nederland) is of the opinion that the Holland Malt malting plant in Eemshaven is of great importance for arable farming in that region. The location of the factory at a port and the production process aimed at the high-quality segment of the malt and beer market offer considerable socio-economic prospects for arable farming in the north-east Netherlands. It will stimulate the cultivation of cereals that can be used in this production process. The barley of the arable farmers forms part of a fully registered and certified integrated chain, leading to an end product of high-quality beer. The two most important crops being grown in this region are starch potatoes and sugar beet. However, efficiency improvements and reform of Community policy have meant that the area under these crops has become smaller. Barley for the malting factory would offer one of the few lucrative alternatives to growing these crops. For these reasons, arable farmers have promised a financial stake in Holland Malt. (25) Agrifirm fully supports the granting of a subsidy to Holland Malt. It is cooperating with the brewery Bavaria in the Holland Malt joint venture, which provides an integrated chain with regard to the cultivation, storage and processing of malting barley. According to Agrifirm, the Holland Malt production and storage facility provides unique opportunities. The cultivation of malting barley will offer better prospects for farmers in the region. By focusing on the production of malting barley that meets the needs for premium malt, farmers in the region can profit from the growth prospects afforded by the market for premium beer. Building the plant in Eemshaven will, given the logistic advantages, create new industrial activity in North Netherlands. The decision of the Dutch government to grant a subsidy provides a basis for feasible exploitation in the first critical years of the project. (26) According to Holland Malt, it is possible to argue that there is a separate market for premium beer and premium malt. In the premium malt market, outlets for Holland Malt's HTST (‘high temperature, short time’) malt can easily be found. HTST malt increases stability of taste, flavour and sparkle and therefore the shelf life of beer. Holland Malt refers to a letter from the University of Weihenstephan, Munich, which confirms that the patented technology leads to a type of malt that can clearly be distinguished from regular malt (7). In addition, a premium beer brewer, in an annex to the letter from Holland Malt, also recognises the unique features of HTST malt. HTST malt will, moreover, be priced in a higher price range than regular malt produced by other malt houses. As a result of its unique physical characteristics, its perceivable quality and its higher price range, it is very likely according to Holland Malt, that there will be no or limited substitutability between HTST malt and regular malt. HTST malt is expected to create a demand and a market of its own. According to Holland Malt, it cannot simply be assumed therefore that its investment will result in a capacity increase of 55 000 tonnes on the market for regular malt. (27) Holland Malt also notes that, despite the overcapacity in the global market, the investment in Holland Malt will not necessarily lead to more capacity. Holland Malt, being located at a deep sea port, will find normal outlets in the market for export malt. While the growth prospects of the inland European malting industry may deteriorate on account of falling demand for malt in Western Europe, the export trade in malt offers substantial growth prospects. According to Holland Malt, this is confirmed by three reports from 2005 (8). These show that emerging markets in Asia, Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe place the highest requirements on malt and that the European malt industry has a competitive advantage because of the high quality of its malt. Holland Malt notes that it has no difficulties in finding normal outlets for its malt and refers to the fact that its order books were full for 2005, while for the second year in a row it would sell more malt than it produced. It also notes that its closed capacity at Wageningen and Lieshout was catering for the declining malt market in Western Europe, whereas the new capacity at Eemshaven will be targeted at a growing export market. As a result, the net increase in capacity on the malt market will be smaller than is stated in the Commission's letter of 5 May 2005. Holland Malt contends that the investment in the facility at Eemshaven will affect trade with third countries rather than trade between Member States, as the export of malt is a separate market segment from that in which inland malt suppliers operate. Holland Malt emphasises that the situation on the world malt market did not prevent the Commission from authorising investment aid for a malting plant in Lithuania. (28) Holland Malt states that the investment will have a positive impact on the rural development of the North Netherlands region and Germany. It will create an alternative form of crop-growing for a large number of arable farmers (about 1 800). Farmers will grow high quality malting barley for a growing market that, unlike feed barley, will not end up in the Community intervention scheme. In addition, the cultivation of malting barley is less harmful for the environment than that of feed barley. Holland Malt notes that its integrated malt production and barley storage facility makes a definite contribution to food safety. (29) The province of Groningen supports the state aid for the Holland Malt investment. It refers to the positive effect on employment in the region. It also underlines the innovative technology used in the project and the boost it will give to the development of Eemshaven, inter alia through the creation of an agri-business park. The province also mentions the stimulus it will provide to farmers facing difficulties in traditional, locally grown crops like starch potatoes. Changing to the cultivation of malting barley will give them better prospects. IV. COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS (30) The Netherlands responded to the opening of the procedure by letter of 10 June 2005. It reacted to the comments from third parties by letter of 14 October 2005, having requested an extension of the period for replying. (31) In the first letter, the Netherlands states that although the growth prospects for the inland European malting industry may deteriorate given the decreasing demand for malt in Western Europe, the export trade in malt offers substantial growth prospects. Holland Malt can profit from its location at a deep sea port. In this sense it is fair to talk of a divided malt market. The investment in Holland Malt will not affect the already shrinking market of local, inland malt houses in Western Europe. The Netherlands states that the quantity of malt for which export certificates were issued in the Community in 2004/05 was the same as in 2003/04 and requests the Commission to take account of the most recent data on export certificates. Furthermore, the Netherlands considers that a special market segment exists for the high-quality malt of Holland Malt. Reference is made to the letter from the University of Weihenstephan confirming the distinctive characteristics of HTST malt. (32) In its response to the comments from third parties, the Netherlands affirms that in the coming years the world market for malt will grow. Reference is made to a seminar on malting barley on 4-5 October 2005, at which the International Grains Council (9) forecast that global malting capacity will have risen by 10 % in 2010. At this seminar, Rabobank announced that global beer consumption was growing by 2 % a year, mainly caused by increasing beer consumption in emerging markets like South America, Africa, Russia, South-East Asia and China. Modern malting facilities located at deep sea ports and able to produce in bulk will be able to profit from this development. The Netherlands refers to a letter from Euromalt of August 2005 (10), in which it is stated that small, old and inadequate capacity must be closed. The same letter mentions an overcapacity in the Community malting industry of at least 500 000 - 700 000 tonnes. The Netherlands, however, claims that this figure is based on a production of 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Periods of standstill are not taken into account, which makes it uncertain whether overcapacity actually exists. The Netherlands furthermore refers to a report (11) by the research bureau Frontier Economics on Holland Malt (on the geographic market and innovation aspects). The report's conclusion is as follows: ‘there is no indication that the subsidy granted to Holland Malt will lead to a displacement of malt sales by other European producers over and above that which would occur in any event. There is no indication therefore that the provision of the subsidy would exacerbate any overcapacity among European producers of standard malt’. The Netherlands requests the Commission to take account of the existence of a separate market for HTST malt, a type of high-quality malt which counteracts the ‘ageing’ of beer. In addition, it mentions a further closure of 12 000 tonnes of malting capacity, bringing the total closure of existing capacity to 77 000 tonnes. The extra capacity is merely 0,5 % of the total Community production capacity, which would not distort the Community malt market. Finally, the Netherlands states that the subsidy it plans to give is only meant to compensate the location disadvantage of Eemshaven and to offer a level playing field to Holland Malt (without the subsidy, a comparable investment would have been made in a production plant in the deep sea port of Terneuzen). V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID (33) The measure concerns aid to an undertaking that is active in barley processing. Under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2006 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (12), Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the Treaty are to apply to the products covered by the Regulation. The sector concerned by the aid scheme in question is therefore subject to the Community rules on state aid. (34) Under Article 87(1) of the Treaty any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market. (35) The measure consists of a direct subsidy for investment. It is selective in the sense that it favours one single undertaking, i.e. Holland Malt. (36) According to the case law of the Court of Justice, improvement in the competitive position of an undertaking resulting from a state aid generally points to a distortion of competition compared with other competing undertakings not receiving such assistance (13). (37) A measure affects trade between Member States adversely if it hampers imports from other Member States or facilitates exports to other Member States. The deciding factor is whether there is a risk that intra-Community trade will develop differently or is liable to develop differently as a result of the measure in question. (38) The product to which the aid in question relates (malt) is subject to significant intra-Community trade. In 2004, some 1,3 million tonnes of malt were traded within the Community. This represented some 15 % of total 2004 Community malt production (14). The sector is thus exposed to competition. Therefore, there is a risk that intra-Community trade will develop differently as a result of the measure. (39) The measure in question thus constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. (40) Exceptions to the prohibition in Article 87(1) are established in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article. (41) The exceptions listed in Article 87(2) are not applicable, given the nature of the aid measure and its objectives. Nor has the Netherlands claimed that Article 87(2) is applicable. (42) Article 87(3) specifies other forms of aid, which may be regarded as compatible with the common market. Their compatibility with the Treaty has to be studied from the point of view of the Community, not solely that of a given Member State. To ensure the proper operation of the common market, the exceptions provided for in Article 87(3) must be interpreted in a strict manner. (43) As regards Article 87(3)(a), it is pointed out that the beneficiary of the aid is not located in a region where the economic situation can be described as extremely unfavourable in accordance with the Guidelines on national regional aid (15) (having a per capita gross domestic product, measured in purchasing power standards, of less than 75 % of the Community average). Therefore, Article 87 (3) (a) of the Treaty cannot justify an aid for the production, processing or marketing of products in Annex I to the Treaty. (44) As regards Article 87(3)(b), it is noted that the measure concerned is not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State. (45) Nor is the aid intended or suitable for achieving the objectives referred to in Article 87(3)(d). (46) Aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered to be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. (47) Since Holland Malt is not a small or medium-sized enterprise as defined by the Commission (16), Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products (17) does not apply. Whether investment aid for the processing of agricultural products is compatible with Article 87(3)(c) is assessed therefore on the basis of point 4.2 of the guidelines. (48) According to point 4.2.3 of the guidelines, eligible expenses may include construction, acquisition or improvement of immovable property, new machinery and equipment, including computer software. The aid rate may not exceed 50 % of eligible investments in Objective 1 regions and 40 % in other regions. (49) These conditions are met, as aid would be given for the construction of buildings, the purchase of plots for these buildings and machinery. In addition, the Netherlands has limited the notified aid to a maximum of 13,5 % of the eligible costs. (50) Point 4.2.3 of the guidelines states that aid for investments may only be granted to firms the economic viability of which can be demonstrated by an assessment of the prospects of the enterprise. The enterprise must comply with minimum Community standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare. (51) These conditions are satisfied. The Netherlands has given sufficient guarantees concerning the economic viability of both Bavaria NV and Agrifirm, which together form Holland Malt. In addition, it has been adequately shown that the malting plant complies with minimum Community standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare as laid down in the Dutch rural development programme. (52) Point 4.2.5 of the guidelines provides that no aid may be granted for investments in products for which normal market outlets cannot be found. This must be assessed at the appropriate level in relation to the products concerned, the types of investments, and existing and expected capacities. To this end, any restrictions on production or limitations of Community support under the common market organisation must be taken into account. (53) The procedure provided for under Article 88(2) of the Treaty was initiated, since, on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time, could not be ruled out that the malt market showed overcapacity. (54) The Netherlands' and Holland Malt's comments on the opening of the procedure essentially concern three points. First, the issue of overcapacity on the malt market is challenged (the Netherlands and Holland Malt do not dispute, however, that the project creates additional capacity on the malt market). Second, it is stated that the investment in the Eemshaven plant will affect trade with third countries more than trade between Member States, since the export of malt constitutes a market segment separate from that in which inland malt suppliers operate. Third, different markets are assumed to exist for regular and premium malt. (55) The Commission has examined the situation concerning the production of and trade in malt at both world and Community levels. As Eurostat statistics on malt are incomplete due to missing or confidential data on the production and exports of several countries, the Commission has used the data of Euromalt, the International Grains Council and H.M. Gauger's report on the barley-malt market report. (56) As regards the situation on the world market, the Euromalt data indicate that the current world supply capacity of malting plants substantially exceeds demand and will do so for some years to come. The letter from Euromalt of August 2005 (18) contains the following table on world malt capacity. Worldwide Malt Capacity (1000 tonnes) 2004 Surplus 2006 (estimate) Surplus EU-15 7 500 7 600 EU-10 1 200 1 150 Total EU-25 8 700 2 500 8 750 2 700 Russia 850 -550 1 550 100 Ukraine 230 -50 330 120 Belarus 70 -6 70 -10 Central and Eastern Europe 460 -60 470 -60 Total Europe 10 130 1 834 11 170 2 850 NAFTA 3 600 3 900 South America 1 220 1 370 Oceania 770 950 Middle East and Central Asia 200 200 Africa 380 380 China 3 000 3 300 Far East 300 340 Total 9 470 -1 300 1 440 -900 World total 19 780 534 21 610 1 950 (57) As can be seen from the table, in 2004 world malt production capacity exceeded demand by approximately half a million tonnes. Estimates for 2006 point to an increase in this overcapacity to approximately 2 million tonnes. (58) Euromalt in its letter mentions that world beer production is forecast to continue growing at an average minimum rate of between 1 % and 2 % a year. This average growth is a result of two-digit growth in some ‘new’ beer regions (South America, Africa, Russia, South-East Asia and China) and a decline in the ‘old’ regions (Western Europe and North America). At the same time however, the efficiency of the new brewery investments in the growth regions and the trend towards ‘lighter’ beers has resulted in a drastic decline in the use of malt per litre of beer. Euromalt therefore concludes that the rising demand for beer is not matched by an increase in worldwide malt demand for some years to come. In fact, the beer consumption growth pattern, and its predicted continuation, have overencouraged the building of additional malting capacity in the world, the result being that current world capacity on the supply side substantially exceeds demand, and will do so for some years to come. According to Euromalt, continuous investment in maltings is required, but Europe does not need additional new capacity while export markets decline. (59) The current situation of overcapacity worldwide seems to be confirmed by declining global trade figures for malt, as presented by the International Grains Council at the Malting Barley Seminar on 4 and 5 October 2005 in Brussels (19). According to the International Grains Council, global trade in malt declined for two years in a row from 5,621 million tonnes in 2002/2003 to 5,275 million tonnes in 2004/2005 (the latter figure is an estimate). For 2005/2006, the International Grains Council expects a further fall in the quantity of malt traded. This downward trend is also reflected in lower export certificates booked by EU malt exporters in 2004/2005 (2 219 661 tonnes) as compared with 2003/2004 (2 477 849 tonnes), with expectations for 2005/2006 being slightly lower than the figure for 2004/2005 (20). RM International's report on the malt market (21) would also seem to indicate global overcapacity: given the higher standard capacity for new malting plants and that world beer production has increased less quickly in recent years, new malt output would be absorbed less quickly by demand. (60) The Netherlands in its letter of 14 October 2005 states that world demand for malt is expected to rise by 10 % by 2010. Reference is made to the presentation by the International Grains Council at the Malting Barley Seminar in Brussels on 4 and 5 October 2005. It was also stated at this presentation, however, that as regards forecasts for 2010, global malting capacity was expected to rise by 10 %. It would not seem appropriate to use global malting capacity as an indicator of demand, as the Netherlands appears to do. (61) In the years ahead, the development of the global malt market would seem to be subject to two important developments. First, there is the increase in beer consumption in the ‘new’ beer regions. It remains to be seen however, to what extent the Community malting industry will be able to take advantage of this growth. (62) The growth of beer production in China has not led to a substantial increase in malt imports. According to the Rabobank report on the global malt industry (22), the imported volume of malt did not rise, even after the import tariff was significantly reduced in 2002, because China's huge processing industry favours the import of malting-barley. (63) Rising beer consumption and production in South-East Asia has been made possible to a large extent through higher malt imports from Australia due to the proximity of, and free-trade agreements, with that country. (64) Community maltings located at deep sea ports, such as Holland Malt, would seem to be in a good position to satisfy the growing demand for malt in South America and Africa. As regards South America, however, the new malting capacity currently being built in Argentina could partially absorb the rising demand for malt. In addition, Mercosur's expansion, with Venezuela and possibly other South American countries joining will probably lead to a higher intra-South American trade in malt. (65) Developments in Russia are a second important factor for the global malt market. Russia has a total malting capacity of 1 million tonnes, with a further 450 000 tonnes under construction. As the availability of good malting barley catches up with this capacity expansion, Russia will become self sufficient and probably a malt exporter. (66) In view of the above, the Commission has no evidence that the current overcapacity in the global malt market will disappear in the next few years. As far as worldwide trade in malt until 2010 is concerned, the International Grains Council seems to predict a relatively stable volume with the ‘decline in Russia being offset by South American growth’, as mentioned in the presentation at the Malting Barley Seminar in October 2005. (67) As regards malt production capacity and trade in the Community, it should be noted that Holland Malt's plant at Eemshaven became operational in April 2005. Euromalt in its letter of August 2005 mentions that, despite closures of several malting factories due to low profitability, the Community still has a surplus capacity in malt of at least 500 000-700 000 tonnes (capacity in the Community being 8 800 000 tonnes, consumption 5 900 000 tonnes and exports 2 250 000 tonnes). (68) According to Euromalt, the profitability of the Community malting industry in 2005/2006 will be at its lowest, with many companies making a loss and covering only part of their costs. Probably as a result of this low profitability, the largest German malt producer, Weissheimer in Andernach, filed for bankruptcy in spring 2006. In addition, other malt production plants have shut permanently, including four in the United Kingdom, two in Germany and one in France. These are older units of large companies. Other malt producers have decided to shut part of their capacity temporarily. In other cases, old malt production capacity has been replaced by new. The resultant total malt capacity in the Community in July 2006 is put by H.M. Gauger at 8 800 000 tonnes (23), the estimates of consumption in, and exports from, the Community being comparable with those in Euromalt's letter of August 2005. This would still leave an overcapacity of around 600 000 tonnes. (69) The Netherlands, in its letter of October 2005, claims that the figure of 500 000 - 700 000 tonnes mentioned by Euromalt as being the overcapacity of the Community malting industry is based on so-called ‘nameplate’ capacities, i.e. production 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Periods when plants are at a standstill owing to maintenance, technical failures and overhaul are not taken into account, which makes it uncertain whether overcapacity actually exists. (70) The Commission has looked at actual capacity and production figures for the Community malt industry for the last few years. It has taken the following table from H.M. Gauger's statistical digest 2004/2005, which uses national statistics, Euromalt and Eurostat as sources. Total malt capacity and production in the Community Capacity (in tonnes) Production (in tonnes) 2002 8 613 304 8 455 119 2003 8 632 525 8 595 156 2004 8 818 633 8 644 575 (71) The figures in the table point to a utilisation of at least 98 % of total capacity during the years 2002-2004. The figures in the report by Frontier Economics (24) indicate a comparable level of utilisation. In 2005, the utilisation rate was lower, with malt production in the Community at 8,4 million tonnes and capacity at 8,8 million tonnes. For marketing year 2006/2007, total production is expected to be 8,0 million tonnes and capacity 8,8 million tonnes (25). These lower rates of utilisation appear, however, to reflect the reaction of malting plants to low profitability, i.e. their decision to produce less malt and temporarily to shut production capacity. For marketing year 2006/2007, part of the explanation is also provided by the poor harvest of malting barley. The figures for 2002 to 2004 show that it is technically possible to use at least 98 % of the total production capacity. This high percentage for the actual utilisation of total capacity does not seem to be a reason to doubt the existence of overcapacity in the Community malting industry. (72) As for the future, as mentioned in the Euromalt letter of August 2005, ‘small, old and inefficient capacity must be closed. This will be a slow process because of the very structure of the industry in certain Member States’. The process would appear to have accelerated in 2006. By mid-2006, production of malt in the Community appears to have been brought into equilibrium again with actual demand, as malt producers have learned to limit their production to possible sales volumes (26). However, even after the above-mentioned permanent closure of old malt production facilities, total malt production capacity in the Community still exceeds actual demand by some 600 000 tonnes. In addition, demand in the Community is not expected to increase due to stagnating beer consumption, while Community exports will face a global trade situation which is expected to remain relatively stable for the next few years. The Commission does not have clear evidence, therefore, that the current situation of overcapacity will change soon. (73) The Netherlands and Holland Malt take the view that the investment in the Eemshaven plant will affect trade with third countries rather than trade between Member States, since the export of malt is a separate market segment from that in which inland malt suppliers operate. (74) The Commission recognises that part of the malting capacity in the Community consists of inland, small family/privately-owned companies that produce mainly for domestic markets. However, part of their production can also be for export, in which case they would face competition from other malt companies in the Community mainly focused on exports (such as Holland Malt). (75) In addition, there are large groups in the Community malt industry which sell their malt both inside and outside the Community. Holland Malt falls into this category, being located at a deep sea port from which it can serve both the Community and non-Community markets. Community malt companies primarily focused on exports to other markets could therefore face competition from Holland Malt. The same applies to Community malt companies concentrating on selling in the internal market, since Holland Malt still expects to sell a considerable volume of malt to European countries. In its business plan of August 2003, Holland Malt mentioned that it expected to sell 71 540 tonnes to European destinations in 2005 (compared to expected sales of 28 100 tonnes to Asia, 40 600 tonnes to Latin America and 29 000 tonnes to Russia). (76) Situations may well occur in which malt companies concentrating primarily on exports to third countries (such as Holland Malt) may not be able to find buyers for the output intended for those destinations, in which case they might seek to sell it inside the Community. The opposite may also occur. The Commission therefore does not consider the segments inside and outside the Community to be completely separate. Linkages exist, with developments outside the Community having an effect on developments inside, and vice versa. (77) Given the above, the Commission does not share the conclusion of the report by Frontier Economics that there is no indication that the subsidy granted to Holland Malt will lead to a displacement of malt sales by other European producers over and above those which would occur in any event. The Commission cannot rule out such displacements in the sale of malt by other Community malt producers to customers within and outside the Community. It concludes, therefore, that the aid may well have an impact on trade and competition between the Member States. (78) The Commission has taken note of the information sent by the Netherlands and Holland Malt (including the letters from third parties) on the development of HTST malt (27). The Netherlands, Holland Malt and the interested parties describe HTST malt as having different characteristics from regular malt, which give the beer more taste and flavour, longer-lasting sparkle and an increased shelf life. (79) The Netherlands and Holland Malt state that HTST malt can be considered to be a premium malt. They also maintain that as a result of its unique physical characteristics, its perceived quality and its higher price range, it is very likely that there will be no or limited substitutability between HTST malt and regular malt. HTST malt is expected to create a demand and a market of its own. (80) The Commission acknowledges that HTST may well have particular characteristics and be of a high quality. It has to be established, however, whether or not a separate market exists for premium malt (which HSTS malt would serve) alongside a market for regular malt. The Court of First Instance has specified that in order to be considered the subject of a sufficiently distinct market, ‘it must be possible to distinguish the service or the good in question by virtue of particular characteristics that so differentiate it from other services or other goods that it is only to a small degree interchangeable with those alternatives and affected by competition from them. In that context, the degree of interchangeability between products must be assessed in terms of their objective characteristics, as well as the structure of supply and demand on the market, and competitive conditions.’ (28) (81) As regards the structure of supply and demand on the market and competitive conditions, the Commission has received comments from several parties (mostly national maltsters' associations) indicating that a clear distinction between regular and premium malt cannot be made. According to these, malt is, if anything, a product of a generic nature, with small variations in characteristics and subject to quality standards imposed by the brewing industry. The majority of maltsters' customers seem only to want high-quality malt that meets their specifications and satisfies all food safety requirements. (82) The degree of interchangeability between different malts from different malting companies would therefore not seem to be small, since all these companies have to produce malt of high quality to be able to satisfy their customers' demand. (83) This would seem to be confirmed by evidence that premium beer is not necessarily produced with another quality of malt than regular beer. According to the Netherlands, Holland Malt will produce its HTST malt primarily for the ‘premium’ segment of the beer market. The Netherlands states that for the production of these premium beers, raw materials of a high quality are required with characteristics that improve the flavour of these beers. Holland Malt in its letter mentions the ‘Just Drinks.com 2004 report’ (29), in which - according to Holland Malt - ‘major brewers state that premium beers are an inherently better liquid with a fuller, more distinctive taste’. (84) According to the Commission, however, this sentence in the report refers to consumers' perception of premium beer, and not to a statement of major brewers. On page 59 of the report it is stated that ‘Scottish & Newcastle on the other hand pointed to consumers' perception of higher quality and the status that is conferred by purchasing a premium brand. The key factors are: perception of higher quality - premium beers are an inherently better liquid with a fuller, more distinctive taste’. (85) In fact, the executive summary of the report as submitted by Holland Malt itself starts by saying that ‘interviews by just-drinks.com with a number of major international players in the global brewing industry revealed that premium beer is basically a marketing concept’. The report also mentions that a standard beer can become a premium beer in a given region or a particular country within a region and that the major international brewers adopt different marketing strategies for different markets. Brands recognised as premium in some regions are not necessarily recognised as such in others. The report furthermore states that ‘the reader must be aware that demand for premium beer looked at in terms of comparisons between years and trends over a number of years, is variable due to changes in consumer perceptions and not in product specification. As Interbrew points out, it is consumers who decide what is premium, not the industry’. (86) The fact that product specification is not an important factor in determining which beers are considered premium beers indicates that different malts, provided they meet (minimum) quality standards imposed by the brewing industry, are easily interchangeable. This interchangeability of malt is also referred to in the Hugh Baird/Scottish and Newcastle merger case (30). Concerning the relevant product market, the notifying parties (Hugh Baird and Scottish and Newcastle) state that it is at least as broad as the malt market. The decision mentions that ‘although the malt market may arguably be subdivided, e.g. into brewing malt and distilling malt, the parties do not believe that this is appropriate because of the high degree of supply-side substitutability’. (87) In addition, the Commission has not been able to detect a separate market for premium malt in studying the statistical sources for malt production. On the contrary, all these sources (Eurostat, Euromalt, International Grains Council) only provide data on the general malt market. The Netherlands and Holland Malt themselves have not provided data on existing capacities for, or the production of, premium malt. On the contrary, in the argument about overcapacity, they have referred to figures for malt (as a product), without making a distinction between regular and premium malt. (88) The Commission considers, therefore, that a clear dividing line between the two categories (regular and premium malt) cannot be drawn. There may perhaps be differences in quality, but they do not appear to be of such a nature that the interchangeability of types of malt or competition between maltsters is appreciably limited thereby. (89) Based on the above findings on overcapacity in the malt market, possible effects on trade between Member States of the aid measure in question and the lack of a clearly distinctive separate market for premium malt, the Commission considers the aid not to comply with point 4.2.5 of the guidelines, which provides that no aid may be granted for investments in products for which normal market outlets cannot be found. (90) Holland Malt points out that the situation on the global malt market did not prevent the Commission from authorising investment aid for a malting plant in Lithuania. (91) The Commission would like to stress that it has not authorised state aid for an investment in a malting plant in Lithuania after that country's accession to the Community on 1 May 2004. Before that date, no state aid rules applied in Lithuania for agricultural products. In any event, failings by other Member States to meet their obligations under Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty are irrelevant to whether the Member State against which the procedure in Article 88(2) of the Treaty has been initiated has granted (unlawful) aid (31). (92) The Commission also wishes to state in this respect that it initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty after Spain had notified its intention to grant aid to a malt factory named Maltacarrión S.A (32). The procedure was initiated on the same grounds as in the present case, i.e. that it cannot be ruled out that the malt market shows overcapacity. After the procedure had been initiated, Spain withdrew its notification of the aid in question. (93) The Commission acknowledges and does not dispute the important regional development aspects of the aid for Holland Malt, as explained by the Netherlands and various interested parties. In this sense, the project would fit well with the IPR scheme. (94) The project must, however, meet all the requirements for investment aid for the processing and selling of agricultural products as laid down by the guidelines. As it does not fulfil at least one important condition, the Commission cannot authorise the state aid for the project, despite its positive regional development aspects. VI. CONCLUSION (95) For the above-mentioned reasons, the Commission considers the aid to Holland Malt to be incompatible with Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty. The aid measure does not comply with point 4.2.5 of the guidelines, which provides that no aid may be granted for investments in products for which normal market outlets cannot be found. (96) In its letter dated 17 December 2004, the Netherlands declared that the aid was promised subject to approval by the Commission. If, despite this condition, any aid has actually been disbursed, it will have to be recovered, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The state aid which the Netherlands has granted to Holland Malt BV in the form of a subsidy of EUR 7 425 000, subject to authorisation by the Commission, is incompatible with the common market. Article 2 The Netherlands shall withdraw the state aid referred to in Article 1. Article 3 1. The Netherlands shall take all necessary measures to recover from the recipient the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to the recipient. 2. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was made available to the recipient until its actual recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the net grant equivalent under the regional aid rules. Article 4 The Netherlands shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. Article 5 This decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Done at Brussels, 26 September 2006.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COMMISSION DECISION of 22 August 1989 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan (89/511/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof, After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by that Regulation, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE (1) In April 1988 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the Syndicat national des industries d'équipement (MTPS) on behalf of producers representing the majority of Community production of hydraulic excavators under six tonnes in weight. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the product concerned originating in Japan and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to warrant the opening of an investigation. The Commission accordingly announced, by notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of self-propelled excavators under six tonnes in weight with a 360° revolving superstructure falling within CN code ex 8429 52 00 originating in Japan, and commenced an investigation. (2) The Commission officially notified the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the complainant and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing. Most of the producers/exporters and importers known to be concerned made known their views in writing. Most of them requested and were granted hearings. (3) The Commission sought and verified all the information it considered necessary for a determination of injury. On-the-spot investigations were carried out at the premises of the following companies: (a) Community producers - Ecomat SA, Belley, France and its sales company Pel Job, Alby sur Chéran, France, - JC Bamford Excavators, Rochester, United Kingdom, - Macmoter SpA, Modigliana, Italy, - Vermeer Holland BV,. Hoofddorp, Netherlands; (b) Importers/distributors - Komatsu Baumaschinen Deutschland GmbH, Gross-Gerau-Dorheim, Germany, - NV Komatsu Europe SA, Vilvoorde, Belgium, - SA Kubota Europe, Argenteuil, France, - Kubota (UK) Limited, Oxon, United Kingdom, - NV Verbist, Breendonk, Belgium, - Saville Tractors Limited, Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom, - Imer France, Vif, France. (4) The investigation period set pursuant to Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 covered the period 1 April 1987 to 31 May 1988. B. INJURY (5) In order to determine whether or not the allegedly dumped imports caused material injury to the Community industry, the Commission took into consideration the following facts: (a) Volume, market share and price of imports (i) Volume (6) Imports into the Community of small hydraulic excavators originating in Japan increased from 2 706 units in 1984 to 5 443 in 1986. The imports during the investigation period reached 6 733 units on a yearly basis. There were no imports of any importance from other third countries during the investigation period. (ii) Consumption and market shares (7) The Community consumption of the hydraulic excavators concerned has been calculated on the basis of the number of units exported from Japan by the exporters concerned and the sales by EEC producers. It was found that the consumption per annum of the product concerned, increased from 2 940 units in 1984 to 8 590 units during the investigation period, i. e. an increase of 192 %. In terms of market share the Japanese exporters' market share decreased from 92 % in 1984 to 78,4 % during the investigation period,. while the Community producers increased their share of the market from 8 % to 21,6 % during the same period. (iii) Prices (8) The evidence available to the Commission shows that during the investigation period the prices of the imports were in certain cases lower than those charged by the Community producers. On the basis of a representative selection of sales during the investigation period and using the model comparison proposed by the EEC industry the price undercutting by the Japanese exporters amounted on average to 1,2 %. (b) Effect on Community industry (9) The Commission found that two companies, JC Bamford Excavators Ltd, and O & K Orenstein und Koppel Aktiengesellschaft, did not manufacture the product in question during the investigation period. A third company, Smalley Excavators Limited, did not reply to the Commission's questionnaire. The effect on Community industry has therefore only been examined for those companies which effectively manufactured the product which is the subject of the proceeding: - Ecomat SA and its related sales subsidiary Pel Job SA, - Macmoter SpA, - Vermeer-Holland BV, (i) Community production (10) With regard to the production of the Community producers concerned, it was found that there was an increase from 292 units in 1984 to 2 068 units during the investigation period on a yearly basis. (ii) Sales (11) It was found that sales of Community producers increased from 234 units in 1984 to 1 857 units during the investigation period on a yearly basis. (iii) Consumption and market share (12) The development of the production and sales of the Community producers concerned was assessed in the light of the development of the consumption and market share of the Community industry as described above. The market share held by the Community producers was about 8 % in 1984, and increased to 21,6 % during the investigation period. (iv) Capacity and capacity utilization (13) The production capacity per annum increased from 600 units in 1984 to 3 400 units during the investigation period. Capacity utilization increased from 49 % to 60 % in the same period. (v) Prices (14) The sales prices of the Community producers concerned decreased initially during 1985 and 1986 to increase subsequently thoughout 1987 until the end of the investigation period on 31 May 1988. (vi) Profits (15) With regard to profitability it was found that all Community producers made profits during the investigation period representing an improvement from previous years when some producers were making losses. (c) Conclusion on injury (16) The above data indicate that, despite the growth in Japanese imports into the Community and the existence of some price undercutting, the European producers were able to increase production, capacity, capacity utilization and share of the Community market. They were able to sell at prices which allowed positive financial results to be achieved. In the light of these findings it is considered that the Community producers concerned did not suffer material injury during the investigation period. C. DUMPING (17) In view of the above findings with respect to injury the Commission considered it unnecessary to investigate further the question of dumping with regard to the imports concerned. D. CONCLUSION (18) In these circumstances, given the actual market situation during the investigation period, protective measures are unnecessary and the proceeding should be terminated. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility of a new investigation being initiated if a new complaint were lodged showing evidence of changed circumstances, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of hydraulic excavators originating in Japan is hereby terminated. Done at Brussels, 22 August 1989.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Council Decision of 6 May 2003 appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions (2003/340/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the French Government, Whereas: (1) On 22 January 2002 the Council adopted Decision 2002/60/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions(1). (2) The seat of a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Jean-Paul DELEVOYE, of which the Council was notified on 14 February 2003, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article Mr André ROSSINOT, Mayor of Nancy, is hereby appointed a member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Jean-Paul DELEVOYE for the remainder of his term of office, which ends on 25 January 2006. Done at Brussels, 6 May 2003.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Council Decision of 19 May 2003 on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the Accession Partnership with Bulgaria (2003/396/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 622/98 of 16 March 1998 on assistance to the applicant States in the framework of the preaccession strategy, and in particular on the establishment of Accession Partnerships(1), and in particular to Article 2 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas: (1) The Luxembourg European Council stated that the Accession Partnership is a new instrument and the key feature of the enhanced preaccession strategy. (2) The Copenhagen European Council stated that following the conclusions of the European Council in Brussels and depending on further progress in complying with the membership criteria, the objective is to welcome Bulgaria as a member of the European Union in 2007. It endorsed the Commission's communication on a roadmap for Bulgaria, including the proposals for a significant increase in preaccession assistance, and stated that the high level of funding to be made available should be used in a flexible way, targeting the priorities identified, including in key areas such as justice and home affairs. It stated that further guidance in preaccession work would be provided by the revised Accession Partnerships to be presented to them next year. (3) Regulation (EC) No 622/98 sets out that the Council is to decide, by a qualified majority and following a proposal from the Commission, on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the individual Accession Partnerships, as they will be submitted to each applicant State, as well as on subsequent significant adjustments applicable to them. (4) Community assistance is conditional on the fulfilment of essential elements, and in particular on the respect of the commitments contained in the Europe Agreements and on progress towards fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria; where an essential element is lacking, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may take appropriate steps with regard to any preaccession assistance. (5) The Luxembourg European Council decided that the implementation of the Accession Partnership and progress in adopting the acquis communautaire will be examined in the Europe Agreement bodies. (6) The Commission's 2002 regular report presents an objective analysis on Bulgaria's preparations for membership and identifies a number of priority areas for further work. (7) Bulgaria needs to ensure that the appropriate legal and administrative structures needed for the programming, coordination, management, control and evaluation of Community preaccession funds are in place, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 622/98, the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions in the Accession Partnership for Bulgaria are set out in the Annex hereto, which forms an integral part of this Decision. Article 2 The implementation of the Accession Partnership shall be examined in the Europe Agreement bodies and by the appropriate Council bodies on the basis of regular reports by the Commission to the Council. Article 3 This Decision shall take effect on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Done at Brussels, 19 May 2003.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL DECISION of 23 November 1992 authorizing the French Republic to apply measures derogating from Article 17 and Article 22 (3), (4) and (5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (92/544/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas, pursuant to Article 27 (1) of the aforementioned Directive, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorize any Member State to introduce special measures for derogation from that Directive in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance; Whereas the French Republic, by letter received by the Commission on 12 March 1992, applied for authorization to introduce arrangements for the tax payable by authors to be withheld at source, with deductible input tax calculated on a flat-rate basis, and an option for authors to waive expressly their inclusion in this scheme; Whereas these arrangements constitute a derogation from Article 17 of the aformentioned Directive concerning the origin and scope of the right to deduct and from Article 22 (3), (4) and (5) of the Directive concerning the obligations of persons liable for payment; Whereas the other Member States were informed of the French Republic's application on 10 April 1992; Whereas the proposed simplification of the arrangements for charging the tax will make it easier for authors to accept the status of taxable person; Whereas the application may be granted on certain conditions; Whereas the authorization should be temporary, so that the effects of application of the arrangements can be assessed; Whereas the Commission will submit a report to the Council by 31 December 1996 on the application of the derogations, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for a Decision to extend the authorization; Whereas this derogation should have no effect on the Community's own resources accruing from value-added tax, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 By way of derogation from Article 17 and Article 22 (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the French Republic is hereby authorized from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996: - to introduce arrangements for withholding at source the tax payable by authors where the royalties they receive are paid publishers, royalty collection and distribution companies or producers, - to calculate authors' deductable input tax by applying a flat rate of 0,80 % to their royalties. The amount determined in this way shall be exclusive of any other deduction. Article 2 In the light of a report from the Commission on the application of the authorization referred to in Article 1, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for a Decision, the Council, acting on the basis of that proposal, shall decide before 31 December 1996 whether the said authorization is to be extended. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the French Republic. Done at Brussels, 23 November 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 9/2010 of 23 December 2009 concerning the authorisation of the endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks and turkeys for fattening (holder of authorisation Danisco Animal Nutrition, Finnfeeds International Limited) (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 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof, Whereas: (1) Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation. (2) In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, an application was submitted for the authorisation of the preparation set out in the Annex to this Regulation. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. (3) The application concerns the authorisation of the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks and turkeys for fattening, to be classified in the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’. (4) The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) concluded in its opinions of 12 and 19 September 2007 (2), of 22 November 2007 (3) and of 2 July 2009 (4) that the enzyme preparation of endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Trichoderma reesei (ATCC PTA 5588) does not have an adverse effect on animal health, human health or the environment and that the use of that preparation improves the performance of the animals. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Community Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. (5) The assessment of that preparation shows that the conditions for authorisation, provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised, as specified in the Annex to this Regulation. (6) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The preparation specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’ and to the functional group ‘digestibility enhancers’, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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, 23 December 2009.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1731/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing the weighting coefficients to be used in calculating the Community market price for pig carcases and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2013/91 THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1249/89 (2), and in particular Article 4 (6) thereof, Whereas the Community market price for pig carcases, as referred to in Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75, must be established by weighting the prices recorded in each Member State by coefficients expressing the relative size of the pig population of each Member State; whereas these coefficients should be determined on the basis of the number of pigs counted at the beginning of December each year in accordance with Council Directive 76/630/EEC of 20 July 1976 concerning surveys of pig production to be made by the Member States (3), as last amended by Directive 86/83/EEC (4); Whereas, in view of the results of the census of December 1991 the weighting coefficients fixed by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2013/91 (5) should be adjusted; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The weighting coefficients referred to in Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 shall be as specified in the Annex hereto. Article 2 Regulation (EEC) No 2013/91 is hereby repealed. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 July 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 30 June 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

***** COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 25 June 1987 amending Directive 71/316/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to common provisions for both measuring instruments and methods of metrological control (87/355/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3), Whereas Annex II to Council Directive 71/316/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to common provisions for both measuring instruments and methods of metrological control (4), as last amended by Directive 87/354/EEC (5), must be supplemented by drawings of the distinguishing letters E for Spain, EL for Greece and P for Portugal; Whereas it is also necessary to amend the said Annex in order to replace the drawing of the distinguishing letters IR for Ireland by IRL, HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 1. The drawings referred to in point 3.2.1 of Annex II to Directive 71/316/EEC are hereby supplemented by the distinguishing letters E, EL and P and the distinguishing letters IR are hereby replaced by IRL. 2. The models for these distinguishing letters are shown below: Article 2 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 1987. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. 2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive. Article 3 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 25 June 1987.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission decision of 23 December 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (notified under document number C(2002) 5378) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2003/875/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above(1) and having regard to their comments, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Stages of the procedure (1) Following a series of complaints concerning State aid granted to Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter "KNT"), Germany was asked by the Commission in 1999 and 2000 to provide all relevant information that would enable it to examine whether the aid was compatible with the common market. The measures concerned State aid granted to KNT for the construction and expansion of a sawmill in Wismar (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). The information provided by Germany was deemed to be incomplete and did not allay the Commission's concerns as to whether the measures were compatible with previously approved aid schemes. (2) By letter of 17 August 2000, Germany was required by the Commission in accordance with Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(2) and with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 5 October 1994 in Case 47/91 Italy v Commission(3) to present all the information necessary to assess whether the measures in favour of KNT were covered by aid schemes which had previously been approved by the Commission. (3) By letter of 13 November 2000, the annexes to which were received by separate post on 16 November, Germany provided some of the information necessary to assess whether the aid recipient was to be regarded as an SME within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises(4) ("Community SME guidelines") and Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises(5) and, therefore, as being eligible for aid in the assisted areas where the two projects are located, with a maximum gross aid intensity of 50 %. (4) The Commission informed Germany by letter of 20 June 2001 of its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and to require the provision of information in accordance with Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. (5) Germany replied to the decision initiating the procedure and the information injunction by letter of 2 August 2001, the annexes to which were received on 12 November. (6) The decision initiating the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(6). At the same time, the Commission called on all interested parties to submit their comments. (7) The Commission received comments from a number of third parties. The comments were forwarded to Germany, which replied by letter of 31 October 2001. (8) On 15 January 2002, the Commission adopted Decision 2002/468/EC(7) terminating the formal investigation procedure. Some of the assistance for KNT was considered to be incompatible and was required to be repaid. (9) On 27 March 2002, KNT lodged a complaint with the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to the effect that the Commission had not correctly interpreted an approved aid scheme. Together with the complainant, the Commission sought to have the procedure suspended so that it could withdraw its decision, which was unsound in law. (10) Further details also came to light. On 9 and 11 September 2002, the Commission asked Germany for its views on the new particulars presented by KNT in a letter of 26 September 2002 (the annexes were received on 1 October). 1.2. Reasons for withdrawing Decision 2002/468/EC (11) In Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission had declared as incompatible with the common market a measure that had apparently been authorised by Germany on the basis of an approved aid programme. According to the Commission, the measure did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Investment Allowance Law. (12) The Commission took the view that the aid recipient, since it employed more than 250 workers at the time the measure was authorised, was not eligible for an aid intensity of more than 10 %. The authorised aid framework provides for an aid ceiling of 10 % for recipients with more than 250 workers. The Commission considered that the measure was covered by the aid programmes only up to 10 % of the eligible costs since the recipient, which was defined as an "economic unit", employed more than 250 workers at the time the aid was granted. According to the Commission, no other justification for the compatibility of the excess amount of aid with the common market could be found. Accordingly, it concluded that part of the aid did not satisfy the criteria determining compatibility with the common market. (13) In its appeal to the Court of First Instance, the representatives of the recipient argued that, in interpreting the German Investment Allowance Law and the decision authorising it, the Commission had made a mistake in law, particularly as regards the definition of "recipient" within the meaning of the Community SME guidelines. The Investment Allowance Law provides for a tax exemption for the acquisition and production of capital goods and buildings by firms established in the new Länder. The representatives also claimed that the Law defined the recipient of the investment allowance as economically and organisationally separate operating units and not as a single economic unit. According to them, the Commission had misinterpreted its Decision authorising the Investment Allowance Law and its Decision 2002/468/EC was unsound in law in view of the measure authorised on the basis of the Law. Neither the Member State nor the recipient had any interest in maintaining in force a partly negative decision. Accordingly, the Commission has decided to withdraw Decision 2002/468/EC. Additional information and clarifications were needed in order to take a new decision and Germany has provided these. In the light of this new information, the Commission considers it appropriate and justified to carry out a new assessment, not only of the measure authorised under the Investment Allowance Law but also of the guarantee for a DEM 29750000 loan that had also been declared incompatible with the common market in Decision 2002/468/EC. No legitimate expectations or acquired rights of third parties stand in the way of a reassessment. 2. THE MEASURE 2.1. The aid recipient (14) The legal person to which the aid was granted, KNT, was formed on 28 May 1997 and constructed a new sawmill in Wismar, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, in 1998. KNT processes coniferous timber. The business is conducted by the general partner(8) Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH ("KNT-GmbH"). The shares in the limited partnership KNT are owned by Fritz Klausner, a natural person, who also owns all the capital of KNT; he is the sole limited partner(9) of KNT. (15) Fritz Klausner also holds shares in other companies. (16) Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH ("KHI-GmbH") is an Austrian limited liability company responsible for the management of Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH & Co. KG ("KHI"), which operates a sawmill in St Johann (Tyrol). KHI-GmbH is the general partner of KHI. (17) The shareholders of KHI-GmbH are: (a) Fritz Klausner (25 %); (b) Margarethe Klausner (Fritz Klausner's mother) (50 %); (c) Anne Klausner (Fritz Klausner's sister) (25 %). (18) The partners of KHI are: (a) KHI-GmbH (general partner; no capital interest); (b) Fritz Klausner (limited partner; capital interest of 75 %; no voting rights since 1 January 1997); (c) Margarethe Klausner (limited partner; capital interest of 25 %). (19) Klausner Holz Thüringen Geschäftsführung GmbH ("KHT-GmbH") is a German limited liability company which manages the business of Klausner Holz Thüringen GmbH & Co. KG ("KHT"). KHT operates a sawmill in Friesau (Thuringia). Fritz Klausner owns all the shares in KHT-GmbH; he managed the company until 19 June 1997. (20) The partners of KHT are: (a) KHT-GmbH (general partner; no capital interest; managing director); (b) Fritz Klausner (limited partner; capital interest of 20 %); (c) KHI (limited partner; capital interest of 80 %). (21) KHT Hobelwerk Beteiligungs GmbH ("KHO-GmbH"), which is wholly owned by Fritz Klausner, was formed on 15 May 1997. It is the general partner of KHT Hobelwerk GmbH & Co. KG ("KHO"), which operates a planing mill in Thuringia. (22) Klausner Nordic Services GmbH ("KNS"), which is wholly owned by Fritz Klausner, is a service company for local enterprises. (23) Klausner Nordic Energie GmbH ("KNE"), which is wholly owned by Fritz Klausner, operated a power plant. (24) The companies with which Fritz Klausner was involved from 1996 to 1999 are the following: TABLE TABLE 2.2. The measures 2.2.1. Measure for the construction of a new production plant in Wismar ("first aid package") (25) The Economics Ministry of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania decided on 18 April 1997 (the decision was modified on 12 March 1998) to grant KNT investment aid for the construction of a sawmill in Wismar under the 27th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme for improving regional economic structures (1998 to 2002)(10). The sawmill is located in an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The grant was equivalent to the ceiling of DEM 43818300 (EUR 22,4 million), corresponding to a gross intensity of 38,21 % of the eligible investment costs of DEM 114669000 (EUR 58,6 million). According to Germany, the aid was conditional on the creation of 115 jobs. (26) By decision of 26 April 1998, which was modified on 25 July 1998, Germany also granted KNT an investment allowance for 1997 of DEM 2635086 (EUR 1,3 million) under the Investment Allowance Law 1996, an aid scheme approved by the Commission(11). The aid intensity amounts to 2,3 % of the eligible costs. (27) By a decision of 1 September 1999, a further investment allowance was granted on the basis of the Investment Allowance Law amounting to DEM 2500000 (EUR 1,3 million), representing 2,18 % of the eligible investment costs. (28) In 1997 Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania also assumed a guarantee to secure 80 % of a low-interest loan of DEM 30 million (EUR 15,3 million) under its guarantee guidelines which had been approved by the Commission(12). The aid element contained in this measure amounted to 0,5 %, according to the German authorities, who assumed that KNT ranked as an economically sound enterprise. This represents aid amounting to EUR 61355,03, equivalent to an intensity of 0,1 % of the eligible costs. (29) According to Germany, the aid intensity of the measure mentioned amounted to 43,18 % of the eligible costs. The actual aid intensity is 42,79 % of the eligible costs. (30) The enterprise argued that it had actually invested DEM 124401024 (EUR 63,6 million) and that, for this reason, the aid intensity should be lowered to 39,80 %. This information was not confirmed by Germany, however, and the Commission was not presented with any further evidence. The Commission is therefore basing itself on the decisions of the German authorities that granted the aid in which the eligible costs were specified and the aid amount determined and approved. 2.2.2. Measure for the extension of the Wismar mill and the construction of a second sawmill (31) In Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission pointed out that, even after two requests had been made, Germany had not provided full information on the aid granted to KNT in respect of the extension project. After additional information had been provided by KNT and following a request from the Commission for confirmation, Germany eventually provided all the particulars along with written documents concerning the extension project and the aid granted to it. The increase in the investment for the extension project was justified by the additional costs of acquiring and assembling a second saw and the associated investment in appropriate plant (dry hammer and sorting shed). Evidence for the realisation of these additional investments was provided in documents submitted by Germany. (32) According to the most recent figures provided by Germany, the eligible costs for the extension of the Wismar mill and the installation of a second saw amount to DEM 61612000 (EUR 31501715,39). The following aid measures were granted for this project: (a) an investment grant of DEM 8879000 (EUR 4,45 million) under the 27th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme (1998 to 2002), which had been approved by the Commission. The grant was made by the Land by decision of 8 September 1998 and the aid intensity amounts to 14,41 % of the eligible costs; (b) investment allowances totalling DEM 11140587 (EUR 5696091,68): An initial tranche of DEM 7755095 (EUR 3965117,11) was granted for investment in 1999 and a second instalment of DEM 3385492 (EUR 1730974,57) for investment in 2000. The aid intensity represents 18,08 % of the eligible costs; (c) a low-interest loan of DEM 8549999,60 (EUR 4371545,38) under the SME programme of the Reconstruction Loan Corporation (KfW), a scheme approved by the Commission(13): In accordance with Decision 2002/468/EC, the aid intensity of this loan is 1 % of the loan amount. This gives aid of DEM 85499,99 (EUR 43715,45), representing 0,14 % of the eligible costs; (d) an 80 % guarantee granted jointly in 1999 by the Federal Government and the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to secure a loan of DEM 29750000 (EUR 15,21 million) on the basis of the Commission-approved Federal guarantee programme(14) for companies carrying out new projects in the new Länder and on the basis of the above guarantee guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: The aid element of this measure amounts to 0,5 % of the guarantee, bearing in mind that KNT is to be regarded as an economically sound enterprise. Only part of this credit, i.e. DEM 12750000 (EUR 6518971,49)(15), is earmarked for financing investment. The remainder, i.e. DEM 17 million (EUR 8691961,98), is earmarked for financing operating assets. The aid amounts to 0,5 % of 80 % of the loan amount of DEM 12750000 (EUR 6518971,49), i.e. DEM 51000 (EUR 26075,89), equivalent to 0,08 % of the eligible costs. (33) According to Germany, the project was also financed by equity amounting to DEM 33041513,02 (EUR 16893857,35). This amount comprises the loan of DEM 6949999,99 (EUR 3553478,57) under the KfW environmental programme; the aid element is DEM 186971,48 (EUR 95597) and is, according to Germany, to be classed as de minimis aid. (34) These figures were confirmed by the decision of the Economics Ministry of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania dated 25 September 2002 and amending the grant decision of 20 August 1998, which had previously been amended by decisions of 22 October 1999 and 28 March 2002. (35) In the 1999 decision, potential extraordinary depreciation was mentioned with an aid intensity of 1,42 %. This aid was ultimately not granted because it related to investments for 1999 and 2000. The Development Areas Law does not provide for depreciation on investments after 31 December 1998. In the amending decision of 25 September 2002, the German authorities assumed an overall aid intensity for the extension project of 33,99 %. The actual intensity amounts to 33,05 % of the eligible costs. 2.3. Grounds for initiating the procedure (36) Despite the information provided by Germany in response to the information injunction, the Commission still had doubts as to whether the newly established sawmills could be regarded as SMEs and whether the aid as a whole was covered by approved aid schemes. (37) KNT is eligible for these gross aid intensities for the construction and extension of the sawmill in Wismar only if it is a genuine SME. It must therefore meet the conditions laid down in the Community SME guidelines. One of the conditions in the decision approving the aid schemes under which public funds were granted or are still to be granted is compliance with the definition of an SME contained in Recommendation 96/280/EC and the Community SME guidelines. (38) It had to be ascertained in particular whether the legal entity KNT, which had been granted various aid measures, could in itself be viewed as the aid recipient. The particular question was whether it constituted an "economic unit" within the meaning of Community legislation(16) or whether the "assisted enterprise" also encompassed other enterprises of the Klausner group. The doubts related in particular to the relations between KNT and KHT as well as to the degree of their economic integration. In this regard, the size of the enterprise to which the aid was granted had first to be determined before the Commission could assess whether the aid recipient met the definition of an SME. (39) With the still incomplete information from Germany on the enterprises belonging to the Klausner group, the Commission was unable to make a determination on the SME status of the aid recipient and thus on the question of whether the aid granted to KNT is covered by a regional aid scheme previously approved by the Commission or is to be viewed as new aid. However, the Commission also had doubts regarding the compatibility of all the measures with the common market. (40) Accordingly, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and to issue an information injunction under Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. 3. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES (41) After initiating the procedure, the Commission received comments from eight interested parties. (42) Two competitors of the Klausner sawmills complained about not gaining access to the profit-and-loss statement and balance sheet of the Klausner group, which were not published. According to these competitors, taking the figures specified by the enterprise for raw materials consumption, the turnover and balance-sheet total for 1996 had to have exceeded the SME thresholds. Moreover, neither KNT nor KHT made an equity contribution towards the financing of the two projects. Given its scale, the project did not comply with the SME provisions from the outset. The large amount of aid conferred major advantages on KNT in relation to its competitors, most of whom had a turnover of less than EUR 1,5 million and an equity ratio of below 15 %. Since the start of operations in Wismar, large volumes of timber were sold at a price which would not be tenable under normal financial conditions and assuming the same raw material sources. Finally, both sawmill enterprises were of the opinion that KNT's argument that the raw material procurement and product sales by KNT and KHT occurred on two different markets was incorrect. They maintained that the raw timber from Russia and the Baltic region was also used in Austria and by KHT in Friesau. Moreover, a large part of KNT's production was sold in central and southern Germany as well as in Austria and Italy, where the Austrian timber industry is likewise very active. (43) Both the Swedish Timber Association and the Association of the Swedish Forestry Industry sent in their comments after the procedure had been initiated. According to them, the investment aid and credit guarantees for KNT signified that, in addition to the related particle board and laminated wood plants in Wismar, one of Europe's largest sawmills had been constructed. No capacity shortage justifying such investments had been recorded in any of these market segments, however. Sawn timber is to be viewed as a mature product not in heavy demand and there is a strong need for consolidation in the industry. Substantial demand for product development aimed at increasing the use of timber also exists in various market segments. According to the ECE Timber Committee, the production and consumption of sawn timber were as follows in Europe between 1991 and 2000: TABLE TABLE (44) The Swedish associations emphasised that the subsidised formation of KNT and other mills has contributed to the increase in overproduction which the European industry has been seeking intensively to bring under control for many years. This overproduction had led, among other things, to declining prices for sawn timber and increasing raw material costs. According to the KHT website, the production capacity of the Wismar plant is 1,3 million m3. (45) Regarding the SME status of the enterprise, the Swedish industry was unable to comment on the question of whether KNT could be classified as a "small or medium-sized enterprise" in the various phases in which the State aid was granted. According to information in its possession, however, the plant in Wismar is 50 % larger than the largest Swedish sawmill built in the last three years. In conclusion, the associations pointed out that KNT was one of Europe's largest sawmills and, together with the corporate group to which it belongs, exerted a substantial influence on the market in which it is active. (46) A German law firm reacted to the decision to initiate the procedure with the statement that KHT and KNT were active as individual enterprises on the market. Its letter stated that the SME criteria had not been met at the time the aid was granted, but no further details have been provided. Moreover, the law firm stated that the aid intensity of the guarantee was over 0,50 % since the enterprises KNT and KHT were unable to finance the doubling of the Wismar mill's capacity. The letter stated in conclusion that the State aid was granted to KNT to support economic development in the new Länder without any consideration for the provisions of Community law. (47) The Austrian Chamber of the Timber Industry expressed its regret that the balance sheets of KNT and KHT could not be inspected. In its opinion, the aid was granted without the necessary equity bases. It confirmed that the Klausner group procured its raw materials from areas in which the Austrian industry traditionally made its raw timber purchases. Klausner production was able to compete with production from Austrian sawmills only as a result of low prices that did not reflect market conditions. (48) The German Sawmill Association pointed out that KNT and KHT were described as production facilities on their websites. Even assuming that the family owners of all "Klausner companies" and the overlapping, only partially non-voting shares of Fritz Klausner in KHT, held via Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH & Co. KG in St. Johann, did not enjoy or offer the possibility of exerting control, KHT-GmbH, which Fritz Klausner owns, is still though responsible for the management of KHT. (49) KNT likewise responded via its legal representatives to the decision to initiate the procedure. The previously missing information on the number of employees and the financial data of various group companies were supplemented and the aid intensity of the two projects was recalculated. With regard to the construction of the sawmill in Wismar, KNT distinguished between the total aid intensity calculated (as envisaged in the aid notice) on the basis of the investment expenditure (43,18 %) and an intensity calculated on the basis of the actual investments (39,80 %). For the extension project, the total aid intensity amounted to 49,82 % and the "de facto aid intensity" to 30,08 %. KNT also provided more detailed information on the investment allowance for the investments made in 1999, putting the total investment expenditure for the extension project at DEM 37891390. The aid intensity was also recalculated for the extension project on the basis of the total investment expenditure, resulting in a figure of 44,67 %. Finally, an aid intensity of 31,13 % was calculated for the investment totalling DEM 62032981 in 1999 and 2000. (50) KNT also commented on its integration with other companies of the Klausner group. In its view, KNT must be considered as being independent of KHT, given that Fritz Klausner does not exercise joint control over KNT and KHT. KNT refers to Article 1(3) of the Annex to Recommendation 96/280/EC, whereby companies that are to be considered independent are those which are not owned as to 25 % or more of the capital or the voting rights by one enterprise, or jointly by several enterprises, falling outside the definition of an SME. According to KNT, the word "jointly" implies joint exercise of control, which is why the enterprises with one or more holdings must pursue a common interest. Although Fritz Klausner, according to KNT, holds shares in KNT and KHT, he has no possibility in corporate law to make decisions regarding the business operations of KHT. (51) KNT furthermore argued that there are no joint economic interests and no economic integration of KNT and KHT. The concepts of the two enterprises are different, being based on different geographical and logistical features and different raw material and sales market conditions. For example, the mill in Wismar is located in an international Baltic Sea port and imports Nordic timber for the production of high-grade sawn timber. The production from Wismar is exported solely by the economically advantageous sea route. In contrast, given its geographical location, the mill in Thuringia has less favourable marketing options. It processes mainly German timber and distributes its lower-grade production to a neighbouring area because of high transport costs. Therefore, there is no close cooperation between the two enterprises, which also do not pursue any common economic interest. KNT and KHT do not, it is argued, have joint management or joint departments for administrative tasks. They also have different suppliers and buyers. Apart from certain product groups, the two enterprises did not compete with each other. (52) KNT added that the independence of KNT and KHT is evident from the current websites of the two enterprises. The link between the websites of KNT and KHT was made to establish a timber cluster via which independent timber processors and suppliers were to be presented. Other companies were to be added, but the project failed. No other link existed between KNT and KHT. Finally, the fact that KHT appears in the aid applications as a contact person for KNT is because Fritz Klausner was the manager of KHT until mid-1997. Today the enterprises have nothing whatsoever in common administratively. 4. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY (53) By letter of 2 August 2001, Germany commented on the decision to initiate the procedure. Firstly, it turned to the credit guarantee of DEM 29,75 million assumed by the Federal Government and the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania by virtue of the decision of 6 April 1999. According to Germany, this guarantee served to finance the second saw line on condition that the investment cost increase for the first saw line be secured through an obligation on the part of the lending banks before the credits could be disbursed. The guarantee was a condition for the realisation of the investments and the related positive effects for the region. By letter of 11 November 1998, the Commission agreed that an aid intensity of 0,5 % should be set with respect to guarantees for sound enterprises. The legality and compatibility of the guarantee derived from the Commission decision approving the Federal Government's guarantee programme. (54) Germany replied as follows to the Commission's questions set out in the information injunction. The Commission had requested copies of all the resolutions adopted at the general meetings of KHT and KNT partners since their formation. Germany informed the Commission that no written documents on the KHT partner resolutions existed. Regarding KNT, Germany presented a resolution of 7 April 1999 concerning a capital increase and a resolution of 28 December 2000 on the acceptance of a general partner in KNT GmbH & Co. KG. It also attached a copy of the agreements between KNT or KHT and three of their respective suppliers. These were not always the largest suppliers. No agreement existed between KNT and KHT, on the one hand, and the suppliers, on the other, because KNT and KHT were independent companies. A list of all persons with management duties was presented for KHT but not for KNT. (55) Germany likewise discussed the comments of interested parties. Concerning access to the annual reports of KNT and KHT, it pointed out that no legal reporting requirement exists for limited partnerships with limited liability companies as general partners (GmbH & Co. KG) in accordance with Section 264a of the German Commercial Code. Concerning the equity share in the project financing, it stated that KNT's equity capital amounted to DEM [...]. Finally, it pointed out that the projects in Wismar met the conditions of the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme for regional economic development, under which it is necessary to strengthen the infrastructure and competitiveness of the region via investment. KNT was also having to contend with the difficulties stemming from mounting competition on the timber market. (56) With respect to the annual reports, the Commission notes that, in fact, no reporting requirement existed under German law until 31 December 1999. Regarding the equity contribution, the Commission notes that such an obligation first existed in Germany as of 1 January 2000. 5. ASSESSMENT (57) On the basis of the information provided by Germany, the Commission distinguished between two aid packages for KNT, one for the construction of the sawmill in Wismar and the other for its extension. (58) The aid granted to KNT in 1997/98 for the construction of a sawmill in Wismar with a total gross aid intensity of 42,79 % was allegedly granted under regional aid schemes previously approved by the Commission(17). (59) Regarding the aid granted in the period 1998 to 2000 for the extension of the sawmill in Wismar, it is evident from the latest set of documents sent to the Commission by Germany that the total amount of aid corresponded to an aid intensity of 33,99 %. (60) Pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts competition or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the common market in so far as it affects trade between Member States. The aid for KNT was granted through State resources. It distorts or threatens to distort competition because it was granted to an individual undertaking in a branch of production and thus conferred on it an advantage over its competitors. Trade between Member States is affected in so far as KNT is active in a branch characterised by such trade. Germany has not disputed the fact that the measures constitute aid. (61) The Commission notes that the measures were implemented in structurally weak areas under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. It also notes that the maximum admissible gross aid intensity in these regions was 35 % and 50 % for large enterprises and SMEs respectively on the basis of the relevant schemes and the list of development areas applicable at the time the aid was granted(18). These rates represent ceilings which apply to the total aid granted if, for example, aid is granted under various regional schemes or from local, regional, national or Community resources. (62) In light of the total aid intensity of the first aid package, the aid granted to KNT for the construction of the sawmill required that the aid recipient ranked as an SME within the meaning of the Community SME guidelines and Recommendation 96/280/EC. (63) At the time that Decision 2002/468/EC was adopted, the total aid for the extension of the sawmill in Wismar was not fully known to the Commission even after institution of the formal procedure together with its information injunction. At the time, the total aid intensity of the second aid package obviously exceeded 35 %. This means that the aid recipient had to satisfy the SME definition given in Recommendation 96/280/EC and in the Community SME guidelines applicable at the time. 5.1. The SME status of the aid recipient 5.1.1. Definition of an SME (64) Under Recommendation 96/280/EC, "small and medium-sized enterprises" are enterprises which have fewer than 250 employees and either an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 40 million or an annual balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 27 million and which conform to the criterion of independence. (65) "Independent enterprises" are enterprises which are not owned as to 25 % or more of the capital or the voting rights by one enterprise, or jointly by several enterprises, falling outside the definition of an SME or a small enterprise. (66) In this connection, the Commission recalls its position on SMEs, which consists in providing this category of enterprises with special incentives and removing certain handicaps. Point 1.2 of the Community SME guidelines explains that one of the main such handicaps is the difficulty in obtaining capital and credit as well as access to information, particularly information concerning new technologies and potential markets, and the higher costs entailed by new regulatory arrangements. (67) The bonus (i.e. the increase in the admissible amount of aid) for SMEs is therefore justified not only by the contribution which these enterprises make to the common good but also, in light of their positive role, by the necessary compensation for the handicaps they face. It must be ensured, however, that the bonus is, in fact, granted only to enterprises which have to contend with these handicaps. In particular, the definition of an SME must be so restrictive that only those enterprises which have the envisaged positive effect on third parties and are disadvantaged by the abovementioned handicaps are covered. The definition cannot, therefore, be extended to many larger companies which do not necessarily have a positive effect on third parties or which do not absolutely have to reckon with the handicaps typically faced by SMEs. Aid granted to such companies could lead to further distortions of competition and intra-Community trade. (68) This principle is stated in the recital 22 of Recommendation 96/280/EC, which reads as follows:"Whereas, therefore, fairly strict criteria must be laid down for defining SMEs if the measures aimed at them are genuinely to benefit the enterprises for which size represents a handicap." The Commission takes particular care to ensure that the independence criterion is not circumvented. In order to guarantee that only genuine SMEs benefit from a scheme, legal constructs of SMEs which constitute economic groupings with greater market power than that of an SME must be excluded. 5.1.2. Size of the relevant enterprise (69) Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty relies on the definition of an undertaking when defining an aid recipient. As the Court of Justice confirmed(19), an undertaking need not constitute a separate legal entity but may consist of a group of companies. For purposes of implementing Community law, undertakings must be equated with "economic units". Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish between various factors, such as companies' shareholding patterns, the persons of the shareholders/partners and the degree of economic integration. (70) The legal person benefiting from the two aid packages is KNT. When initiating the procedure, the Commission stated that there were indications that KNT was not to be regarded as the relevant enterprise. Various elements suggested that the aid recipient was possibly larger than the legal person KNT and might encompass other companies related to Fritz Klausner. (71) Of the enterprises in which Fritz Klausner is present, three companies operate sawmills, namely KHI, KNT and KHT. The sawmill operations of KHI were discontinued in 1996, however. It must be investigated whether KNT itself constitutes a "single economic unit" or whether the two other sawmills KNT and KHT can be regarded as companies which together form a single economic unit. - In terms of ownership relations (72) Fritz Klausner possesses the entire capital of KNT and is also the sole shareholder in KNT-GmbH, the general partner of KNT. He therefore decides both on the normal and the extraordinary business transactions of KNT. (73) Fritz Klausner owns all the shares in KHT-GmbH, the general partner of KHT. He owns only 20 % of the capital of KHT-KG. The other limited partner of KHT is KHI. Fritz Klausner owns 75 % of the capital of KHI, although he has not been entitled to vote at general meetings of partners since 1 January 1997. According to Germany, the management authority at KHT-GmbH has been restricted so that KHT-GmbH must now muster three quarters of the voting rights of KHT's partners. Fritz Klausner cannot therefore decide alone on the normal and extraordinary business transactions of KHT but requires the approval of his mother, Margarethe Klausner. (74) The Commission notes, however, that all persons with shares in KHT-GmbH, KHT, KHI-GmbH and KHI belong to the same family. (75) Further elements mentioned by the Commission when it instituted the procedure point to the fact that KNT and KHT have coordinated their activity. - In terms of economic integration (76) When initiating the procedure, the Commission presented the arguments deployed by Germany to prove that KNT and KHT should be considered as different economic units. (77) According to Germany, KNT and KHT have different business concepts based on their geographical and logistical features. The two companies do not pursue the same interests and do not work together. (78) The KNT sawmill is located in Wismar, a Baltic Sea port of international importance. It processes high-quality timber from the best regions in northern Europe. It obtains this high-quality timber with its small knots primarily from Scandinavia, Russia and the Baltic States. It exports its production by sea to the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, North Africa and Japan. (79) The KHT sawmill is located in Friesau in the low mountain region of eastern Germany. It obtains its raw material from within a radius of 200 km, processing mainly German timber. This timber is of low quality and, because of high transport costs (rail and road), the mill's markets are limited to Germany, Italy and the USA. (80) In addition, according to Germany, the two companies have their own management and personnel departments. (81) When it instituted the procedure, the Commission specified several elements which suggested that the activities of KNT and KHT-KG are coordinated. (82) At the time the procedure was initiated, there was a link on the KNT website(20) to that of KHT; the names of both companies appeared under the heading "Plant locations". They were described as being located in central Europe, from where they supplied customers all over the world. Both companies were described as enterprises producing high-quality wood whose customers came from the wood processing industry. (83) For the rest, in contrast to Germany's statements, the two companies appeared to share certain management activities. According to the presentation on the websites, they had a joint sales manager, Anne Leibold, and a joint manager responsible for purchasing, Matthias Wittkemper. For such major business activities as material procurement and marketing, KNT and KHT therefore had the same manager and so appeared to the outside world as a single enterprise. (84) Finally, KHT represented KNT in certain business tasks. The decisions of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania concerning the granting of investment aid to KNT for the construction of the sawmill were communicated to KNT "for the attention of" KHT. (85) Germany did not comment specifically on any of these points. It merely presented a list of KNT and KHT managers which showed that the companies did not have joint management. It also provided the Commission with the agreements of KNT and KHT with three of their suppliers. Germany did not comment, however, on the specific questions raised. (86) KNT reacted to these specific questions, as summarised in recitals 48 to 51. It stated that the two companies pursued different economic interests and did not share any management tasks. (87) The Commission is still of the opinion that sufficient elements indicate some coordination of activities by KNT and KHT. After the procedure had been initiated, the websites of the companies were reorganised. KNT argues that the link which existed at the time was set up in connection with the formation of a timber cluster via which various independent producers and suppliers from the timber industry would be able to present their business activities. Following the failure of the project, the link between KNT and KHT was removed. The Commission notes, however, that on both KNT's and KHT's website the two companies were described as the two plant locations. Both were moreover described as companies which supplied their customers with high-quality sawn timber in Europe and worldwide. The comments by interested parties confirmed that both KNT and KHT are present in central Europe, in the Nordic countries and on all markets on which Nordic and Austrian sawmill enterprises are active. KNT and KHT obviously do not have any clearly separate procurement and supplier markets. Even if such a division existed, the fact that each location is specialised in a specific market segment does not rule out the possibility that they belong to the same economic unit. (88) Regarding the management positions in the two companies, their websites were changed so that the names of Anne Leibold and Matthias Wittkemper still appear only on the KHT management list. They were removed from the KNT list on the companies' websites. Anne Leibold as sales manager and Matthias Wittkemper as purchasing manager do not appear on the overview of KNT management personnel which was presented by Germany for the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1999, but only on that of KHT. This change was not justified to the Commission, which doubts that these changes can be sufficiently justified. It cannot therefore be concluded that KNT and KHT do not carry out joint management tasks. (89) It is evident from the comments by interested parties that KNT and KHT are perceived as one and the same enterprise and as one of the market's largest participants. (90) For the above reasons, the Commission has concluded that the legal person KNT cannot alone be regarded as the aid recipient. On the basis of the information available to it, it concludes that the relevant enterprise is larger and also encompasses KHT. KHT and KNT are actually linked to each other through one of their partners. They pursue the same economic activity; purchasing and marketing are carried out by the same managers; and the two enterprises appear on their respective websites under the heading "Plant locations". 5.2. Compatibility of the total amount of aid for the construction of the sawmill in Wismar (91) When the procedure was initiated, the Commission had already come to the conclusion that there was no reason to institute proceedings in respect of the investment grant of DEM 43818000 (EUR 22403787,65), the investment allowance of DEM 2635086 (EUR 1347298) and the guarantee with an aid intensity of 0,5 % that had been made available for the construction of the mill in Wismar, which could be regarded as aid that had been granted previously. (92) However, the Commission had doubts regarding the conformity of the investment allowance of DEM 2,5 million. This measure involved aid in the form of a tax benefit which is granted automatically if the legal conditions (i.e. the realisation of the investment) are met. The State does not have any discretion when granting this tax benefit; the decision of the tax authorities does not create a subjective right but merely constitutes an act to determine whether the conditions for a claim exist. Therefore, the moment an investment is realised is to be regarded as the date on which the benefit is granted. In the present case, 1998 is to be considered the year in which this measure was granted since it was granted for investments realised in that year. (93) The Investment Allowance Law provides for a tax exemption for the acquisition and production of capital goods and buildings by enterprises in the new Länder. It defines those eligible for an allowance as economically and organisationally separate operating units. In the present case, KNT is the sole beneficiary of the aid within the meaning of the Investment Allowance Law. In 1998 KNT had fewer than 250 employees and was thus eligible for an investment allowance of 10 %. The investment allowance amounting to DEM 2,5 million (EUR 1278229,70) was, therefore, covered by an approved aid scheme and constitutes existing aid on condition that the cumulation rules are complied with. (94) The Commission must ascertain whether the aggregate aid intensity is admissible and does not exceed the ceiling for regional aid. In 1998 the aggregate aid intensity for the project was 42,79 %. (95) Recommendation 96/280/EC stipulates:"Where, at the final balance-sheet date, an enterprise exceeds or falls below the employee thresholds or financial ceilings, this is to result in its acquiring or losing the status of 'SME' only if the phenomenon is repeated over two consecutive financial years." (96) The reference year to be considered is 1997 since this is the year of the last annual balance-sheet date. Although the aid recipient had 167 employees in 1997, it achieved a balance-sheet total of EUR [...] and turnover of EUR [...], exceeding the thresholds for the definition of an SME. However, this was not repeated over two consecutive financial years as the SME thresholds were not exceeded in 1996, when the aid recipient had 159 employees and a balance-sheet total of EUR [...]. (97) Accordingly, the recipient did not forgo its SME status in 1998 and was still an SME in that year, when the aid was granted. The establishment aid granted is thus compatible with the ceiling for regional aid. Other aid was granted under approved schemes and is existing aid. 5.3. Compatibility of the total amount of aid for the extension of the sawmill (98) When the procedure was initiated, the Commission had already come to the conclusion that the investment grant of DEM 8879000 (EUR 4539760) for the extension of the project was existing aid. The procedure was thus initiated in respect of the other measures involved in the extension project. (99) The low-interest loan of DEM 8549999,60 (EUR 4371545,98) with an aid intensity of 0,14 % was granted in 1999. Together with the aid already granted for the same project, the aid intensity of all the aid granted for the extension project amounts to 14,55 % of the eligible costs, i.e. below the ceiling of 35 % for large enterprises on the basis of the list of regional development areas. Irrespective of the size of the recipient, the low-interest loan is thus covered by an approved aid scheme and is to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with. (100) The loan of DEM 6949999,99 (EUR 3553478,57) granted under the KfW environmental programme with an aid element of DEM 186971,46 (EUR 95597) was also granted in 1999. Its aid intensity amounts to 0,3 % of the eligible costs. The low-interest loan has to be regarded as existing aid provided that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with since the aggregate intensity at that time was below 35 %. (101) The investment allowance of DEM 7775095 (EUR 3965117,11) is regarded as aid granted in 1999 since the corresponding investment took place in that year. Its aid intensity amounts to 12,58 % of the eligible costs. The investment allowance has to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with. (102) The 80 % guarantee for aid of DEM 51000 (EUR 26075,89) was granted in 1999. It has an aid intensity of 0,08 % of the eligible costs. It has to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are met. (103) The investment allowance of DEM 3385492 (EUR 1730974,57) was granted in 2000 since the corresponding investment was carried out that year. Its aid intensity is 5,5 % of the eligible costs. It has to be regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are complied with. (104) The total aid intensity of the measures granted for the extension project amounts to 33,05 %. Consequently, irrespective of the size of the recipient, all the measures are compatible with the rules on cumulation. Moreover, the amount contributed by the aid recipient accounts for at least 25 % of the finance for the productive investments, as required by point 4.2 of the guidelines on national regional aid(21) with effect from 1 January 2000, when Germany implemented the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission. This was confirmed by Germany in its letter of 26 September 2002. The Commission has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the aid for the extension project constitutes existing aid. 6. CONCLUSION (105) With Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission misinterpreted the Investment Allowance Law. It has, therefore, decided to withdraw that Decision, which is based on a clear mistake in law. Moreover, after the Decision had been adopted, Germany provided new information on the aid granted for the investment project. On the basis of that information and the attached documents, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the aid granted to KNT in respect of the construction and extension projects is covered by existing schemes and thus constitutes existing aid, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Decision 2002/468/EC is herewith withdrawn. Article 2 The following aid which Germany has implemented for Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co constitutes existing aid: (a) the investment allowance of DEM 2500000 (EUR 1278229,70) for the construction of the Wismar plant; (b) the low-interest loan of DEM 6949999,60 (EUR 3553478,52) granted under the KFW environmental programme for the extension of the Wismar plant; (c) the investment allowance of DEM 7775095 (EUR 3975342,95) for the extension of the Wismar plant; (d) the 80 % guarantee to secure a loan of DEM 12750000 (EUR 6518971,49) for the extension of the Wismar plant; (e) the investment allowance of DEM 3385492 (EUR 1730974,57) for the extension of the Wismar plant. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 23 December 2002.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COUNCIL DECISION of 15 February 1993 authorizing the French Republic to extend the application of a measure derogating from Article 2 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (93/110/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof, Having regard to Council Decision 89/683/EEC of 21 December 1989 authorizing the French Republic to apply a measure derogating from Article 2 of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (2), Having regard to the ensuing Commission proposal, Having regard to the Commission report on the application of Decision 89/683/EEC, Whereas, under Article 27 (1) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorize any Member State to introduce or extend special measures for derogation from that Directive in order to simplify the procedure for charging value added tax (VAT) or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance; Whereas, by letter registered by the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 22 October 1992, the Government of the French Republic requested authorization to extend application of the derogation previously granted to it for a limited period by Decision 89/683/EEC on the basis of Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC; Whereas the Commission report on the application of the said measure over the period 1991 to 1992 has demonstrated the latter's usefulness and effectiveness in the waste-recovery sector, which is particularly vulnerable to fraud; whereas the said report finds that there is no reason to oppose extension of the derogation provided that the derogation is clearly limited over time, and expires in the short term; Whereas the other Member States were informed on 20 November 1992 of the request from the Government of the French Republic, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 By way of derogation from Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC, the French Republic is hereby authorized, until 31 December 1996 and in respect of fresh industrial waste and recuperable material, to exempt from VAT: (a) on the one hand, supplies made by: - undertakings whose annual turnover is less than FF 500 000, - undertakings which do not have a permanent establishment or which, although they have a permanent establishment, have achieved in the previous year a turnover figure in respect of such products of less than FF 6 million, unless they are authorized to subject such transactions to VAT; (b) on the other hand, imports and intra-Community acquisitions. Article 2 By way of derogation from Article 10 (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the French Republic is hereby authorized until 31 December 1996 to introduce in respect of supplies to taxable persons of fresh industrial waste and recuperable material in the form of non-ferrous metals and their alloys, where these supplies are not exempt from VAT on the basis of Article 1, arrangements suspending payment of VAT relating to these transactions. The taxable persons receiving these supplies shall pay VAT on them where these products are intended neither for the export as such nor for the manufacture or resale as such of products liable to VAT. Article 3 In the light of a report from the Commission on the application of the authorizations referred to in Articles 1 and 2, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal for a Decision, the Council, acting on the basis of that proposal, shall decide, by 31 December 1996 at the latest, whether the said authorizations are to be extended. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the French Republic. Done at Brussels, 15 February 1993.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Council Decision of 21 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine (2002/51/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal of the Commission, Whereas: (1) The Council decided by Decision 1999/753/EC(1), that the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part(2), would enter into force provisionally on 1 January 2000. (2) An agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine, hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement", has been negotiated. This Agreement was initialled on 30 November 2001 and should be approved. (3) In order to facilitate the implementation of certain provisions of the Agreement, the Commission should be allowed to make the necessary technical adjustments in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(3), HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine together with the attached Annexes, Protocol and Declarations are hereby approved on behalf of the Community. The texts referred to in the first subparagraph are attached hereto. Article 2 The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community. Article 3 For the purposes of applying Articles 7(8) and 18(2) of the Agreement the Commission is hereby authorised, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, to conclude the instruments required to amend the Agreement. Article 4 The Commission shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee set up by Article 19 of the Agreement. Done at Brussels, 21 January 2002.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2205/2001 of 14 November 2001 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of certain additives (Text with EEA relevance) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1), as last amended by Directive 2001/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 9g(4) thereof, Whereas: (1) As provided for in Article 9g(1) of Directive 70/524/EEC, antibiotics and coccidiostats included in Annex I to that Directive before 1 January 1988 were provisionally authorised as from 1 April 1998 and transferred to Chapter I of Annex B with a view to their reevaluation as additives linked to a person responsible for putting them into circulation. (2) New applications for authorisation had to be submitted for the abovementioned additives. Furthermore, Article 9g(4) of Directive 70/524/EEC required that the dossiers in respect of these applications be submitted, as provided for in Article 4 of that Directive and no later than 30 September 2000, with a view to reevaluation. (3) Dossiers were submitted before 1 October 2000 for the coccidiostats meticlorpindol, meticlorpindol/methylbenzoquate, amprolium, amprolium/ethopabate, dimetridazole and nicarbazin and for the antibiotic flavophospholipol. (4) In accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 70/524/EEC, Member States checked the compliance of the dossiers with Council Directive 87/153/EEC of 16 February 1987 fixing guidelines for the assessment of additives in animal nutrition(3), as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/79/EC(4), within a period of 60 days from the date on which the dossiers were dispatched to them. (5) After consultation of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs and in accordance with Article 4(5) of Directive 70/524/EEC, the applicants for authorisation of the abovementioned coccidiostats were notified by the Commission that the rules on administrative presentation of the dossiers had not been complied with, in so far as data ranging from substance identification to important toxicological information were missing. (6) Similarly, after consultation of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs and in accordance with Article 4(5) of Directive 70/524/EEC, the applicant for authorisation of the abovementioned antibiotic was notified by the Commission that the rules on administrative presentation of the dossier had not been complied with for certain animal categories, in so far as efficacy data and data related to tolerance tests were missing for these categories. (7) In order to ensure that the deficiencies in submitting the necessary data were not due to unforeseen delivery reasons, an extra time of three weeks was given to allow the above referred applicants to submit the missing information. (8) For several substances, complementary information was submitted but this was not sufficient to comply with Directive 87/153/EEC, while for the other substances concerned, no complementary data were sent to the Commission within the extra time given. (9) Since the requirements of Directive 70/524/EEC have not been met for the abovementioned coccidiostats, the authorisation granted to these additives should be withdrawn and their entries deleted from Chapter I of Annex B to the Directive. (10) Since the requirements of Directive 70/524/EEC have not been met for the antibiotic flavophospholipol as regards certain animal categories, the entry of the antibiotic in Chapter I of Annex B to the Directive should be amended accordingly. (11) It is appropriate to allow a limited period of time within which existing stocks of the coccidiostats and the antibiotic covered by this Regulation may be used. (12) The Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs has not given an opinion, the Commission has therefore proposed these measures to the Council on 25 July 2001 in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 70/524/EEC, the Council being required to act within three months. (13) The Council has not acted within the required time limit. The Council has not decided against the proposed measures by simple majority within the same time limit. These measures should now be adopted by the Commission, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 70/524/EEC shall be amended as follows: 1. The following substances belonging to the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances shall be deleted: - meticlorpindol, - meticlorpindol/methylbenzoquate, - amprolium, - amprolium/ethopabate, - dimetridazole, - nicarbazin. 2. The entries in relation to flavophospholipol are amended as follows: (a) the animal category "Animals bred for fur, excluding rabbits" is deleted; (b) the animal category "Other poultry, excluding ducks, geese, pigeons" is replaced by the animal category "Chickens for fattening". Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 14 November 2001.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1731/2006 of 23 November 2006 on special detailed rules for the application of export refunds in the case of certain preserved beef and veal products THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1), and in particular Article 33(12) thereof, Whereas: (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2388/84 of 14 August 1984 on special detailed rules for the application of export refunds in the case of certain preserved beef and veal products (2) lays down the conditions under which preserved meat falling within CN codes 1602 50 31 and 1602 50 39 which is exported to third countries may be eligible for a special refund. (2) In particular, those preserved products must be manufactured under the arrangements provided for in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products (3). (3) The rules and conditions for applying the advance payment of the refund on products processed under the arrangements provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 are laid down in Chapter 3 of Title II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (4). (4) The measures laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 565/80, the corresponding implementing measures laid down by Chapter 3 of Title II of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 and Regulation (EEC) No 2388/84 have been repealed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1713/2006. (5) It is also laid down that, in order to benefit from an export refund, the abovementioned preserved products must be produced from beef and veal of Community origin and contain a minimum percentage of beef and veal, excluding offal and fat. (6) To guarantee that the preserved products eligible for export refunds are produced solely from beef and veal, and that the meat is of Community origin, such production must be kept under the control of the customs authority in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (5) and the payment of the refund must remain linked to compliance with those conditions. (7) To increase the transparency and effectiveness of those controls, particularly in the case of a post-clearance check, provision should be made for operators to keep up-to-date records of information allowing monitoring of the use of beef and veal in the production of preserved products according to the production batches of preserved products. (8) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Scope Without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, the payment of an export refund on preserved products falling within CN codes 1602 50 31 9125, 1602 50 31 9325, 1602 50 39 9125 and 1602 50 39 9325 (hereinafter ‘the preserved products’) shall be subject to compliance with the conditions laid down by this Regulation. Article 2 General conditions 1. The preserved products may benefit from an export refund only if they are manufactured under supervision by the customs authorities and under customs control within the meaning of Article 4(13) and (14) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. 2. Production and export must be carried out during the period of validity of the export licence with advance fixing of the refund. Article 3 Specific conditions relating to production 1. Operators shall submit to the customs authority a declaration stating their intention to place meat under customs control with a view to manufacturing preserved products and exporting them with a refund. This declaration shall indicate in particular the quantities involved, the identification details and the types of meat to be used as raw materials, and the places of storage. The meat shall be presented in boxes and labelled in a manner which ensures it is clearly identifiable and can be easily associated with the accompanying declaration. 2. Once the declaration referred to in paragraph 1 has been accepted, the meat and the processing operation shall be placed under customs control. This control shall be based on documentary and physical checks, which may be performed on the meat when it enters the procedure, or during storage or production and on the corresponding documents, particularly those referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8. Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 386/90 (6) and Articles 2(2), 3, 4, 5, 6, 8(1), 8(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2090/2002 (7) and Annex I thereto shall apply mutatis mutandis. 3. Pending production, the meat referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept permanently separate from all other beef and veal. 4. Operators shall keep a separate record of entries of beef and veal intended for the production of preserved products. 5. Operators shall inform the customs authorities of the places and dates of production of the preserved products and shall also notify the quantity, identification details and type of beef and veal to be used to this end. 6. During the production of the preserved products only the beef and veal referred to in paragraph 1 may be present in the production area. 7. For each batch of preserved products produced, operators shall keep an up-to-date record indicating: (a) the nature, identification details and quantities of meat used as a raw material, and (b) the number, identification details, quantity and type of preserved products produced from that meat. The information referred to in point (b) shall be entered on each of the declarations referred to in Article 3(1) under customs control. For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘batch of preserved products’ shall mean all preserved products produced at the same time and under practically identical circumstances. 8. Detailed recipes covering the various production processes and products for which refunds are applied for under this Regulation shall be kept at the place of production. These documents, and those referred to in paragraph 7, shall be kept by operators for at least three calendar years following the year of production. The customs authorities shall have access to these documents as required for control purposes. 9. The preserved products produced shall remain under customs control until they leave the customs territory of the Community or reach one of the destinations provided for in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999. Article 4 Characteristics of preserved products The preserved products shall: - be produced from beef and veal of Community origin, - contain not less than 80 % beef and veal, excluding offal and fat, and - be put in tins of a unit weight of not more than 2 500 grams net. In addition, the name of the Member State in which the product was manufactured shall be stamped in relief, uncoded, on each of the tins, clearly visible, in an official language of that Member State. Article 5 Additional control measures The Member States shall lay down more detailed measures for controlling production of the preserved products and inform the Commission thereof. In particular, they shall take all necessary steps to exclude any possibility of substitution of the raw materials used or of the products in question. Article 6 Export formalities 1. Once the customs formalities for the export of the preserved products have been completed, the customs authority shall indicate the number of the declaration(s) referred to in Article 3(1) on the export declaration(s) referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 together with the quantities and identification details of the preserved products exported corresponding to each declaration. 2. Once the customs formalities for export have been completed, the declaration(s) referred to in Article 3(1), with the additional information added in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(7), and the copy of the export declaration(s) shall be sent through administrative channels to the body responsible for paying the export refunds. Article 7 Entry into force This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from 1 January 2007. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 23 November 2006.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1035/2003 of 17 June 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1038/2001(2), and in particular Article 9 thereof, Whereas: (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 335/2003(4), lays down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 with respect to the conditions for granting area payments for certain arable crops and lays down the conditions for set-aside. (2) Under Community policy to improve quality, the eligibility of claimants of area payments for rape and colza seed is limited to those who have used quality seed of the specified varieties. To determine the eligible varieties, reference is made to the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species established by Council Directive 2002/53/EC(5). The time limit for continued eligibility of varieties removed from the common catalogue should be specified. (3) New varieties of flax grown for fibre may be considered eligible. These should be included in the list of varieties eligible for the support system in Annex XII to Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999. (4) Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly. (5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Article 4(1) is replaced by the following: "1. The Member States shall apply a quality policy in respect of colza and rape seed by limiting areas eligible for area payments to those sown with certified seed of double-zero (00) varieties of colza and rape seed notified and entered as such in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species established by Council Directive 2002/53/EC(6) prior to any payment. Where a variety is removed from the common catalogue, it shall continue to be eligible until 30 June of the third year following that in which it was included at the latest. Double-zero varieties shall be those producing seed with a maximum glucosinolate content of 25 μmol/g at a moisture content of 9 %, as determined by method EN ISO 9167-1: 1995, and an erucic acid content of not more than 2 % of the total fatty acid content, as determined by method EN ISO 5508: 1995." 2. The flax varieties "Alizée" and "Drakkar" grown for fibre are inserted in point 1 of Annex XII. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 1(2) shall apply from the 2003/04 marketing year. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 17 June 2003.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

Commission Regulation (EC) No 793/2003 of 8 May 2003 fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof, Whereas: (1) Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products in the Community may be covered by an export refund. (2) The refunds must be fixed taking into account the factors referred to in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1324/2002(5). (3) As far as wheat and rye flour, groats and meal are concerned, when the refund on these products is being calculated, account must be taken of the quantities of cereals required for their manufacture. These quantities were fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. (4) The world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destination. (5) The refund must be fixed once a month. It may be altered in the intervening period. (6) It follows from applying the detailed rules set out above to the present situation on the market in cereals, and in particular to quotations or prices for these products within the Community and on the world market, that the refunds should be as set out in the Annex hereto. (7) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, excluding malt, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 May 2003. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 8 May 2003.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1247/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special arrangements for imports of grain sorghum and millet originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) or in the overseas countries and territories (OCT) in order to implement the agreement on agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of negotiations THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 of 22 December 1994 on the adjustments and transitional arrangements required in the agriculture sector in order to implement the Agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1161/97 (2), and in particular Article 3 (1) thereof, Whereas in order to take account of the existing import arrangements in the cereals sector and those resulting from the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, transitional measures are needed to adjust the preferential concessions in the form of exemption from the import levy on certain cereal products from the ACP States and the OCT; Whereas the period for the adoption of transitional measures was extended until 30 June 1998 by Regulation (EC) No 1161/97; whereas, pending the adoption by the Council of definitive measures, application of the measures provided for by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1226/96 (4), should be extended until 30 June 1998; Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 lays down detailed rules for the application of the preferential conditions reducing the import levy for quotas of shorghum and millet; whereas, given that the levies were replaced by customs duties and the advance fixing of the import charge was abolished on 1 July 1995, the transitional adjustment of those provisions should be extended; Whereas the rates of duties of the customs tariff within the abovementioned quotas are those applicable on the day that the declaration of release for free circulation of the import is accepted; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Regulation (EEC) No 865/90 is hereby amended as follows for the marketing year 1997/98: 1. 'levy` is replaced by 'duty` each time that it appears; 2. the last sentence of Article 2 (b) and the last sentence of Article 4 (b) are deleted; 3. Article 3 (b) is replaced by the following: '(b) the letters "ACP" or "OCT" as the case may be in Section 8. The licence shall oblige to import from the countries specified. The import duty shall not be increased or adjusted.` Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 30 June 1997.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 May 1992 approving measures to set up pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention presented by the Federal Republic of Germany (Only the German text is authentic) (92/303/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Decision 89/455/EEC of 24 July 1989 introducing Community measures to set up pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof, Whereas, conforming to Article 1 of Decision 89/455/EEC the Federal Republic of Germany shall set up large-scale pilot projects in accordance with Article 3 for the eradication or prevention of rabies in the wild life of the Community using vaccines for the oral immunization of foxes; Whereas the pilot projects as presented by the Federal Republic of Germany include the adjacent border areas of Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland; Whereas the pilot project is part of a cross border cooperation with Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland; Whereas by letters dated 20 August 1991 the Federal Republic of Germany notified the Commission of pilot projects for the control of rabies with a view to its eradication or prevention; Whereas, after examination the pilot project was found to comply with Decision 89/455/EEC whereas the conditions for financial participation by the Community are therefore met; Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The pilot projects in April and May 1992 for the eradication and prevention of rabies, presented by the Federal Republic of Germany are hereby approved. Article 2 The Federal Republic of Germany shall bring into force by 1 April 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the pilot projects referred to in Article 1. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 22 May 1992.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}

COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 1991 on the small-scale fisheries zonal plan (1991 to 1992) submitted by Spain in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (92/29/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3944/90 (2), and in particular Article 4 (4) thereof, Whereas the Spanish Government submitted to the Commission, on 29 May 1991, a small-scale fisheries zonal plan, hereinafter referred to as the 'plan'; whereas it has since submitted additional information on this plan; Whereas it is necessary to examine whether the plan fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 2 (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 and can constitute a framework for Community and national financial measures in the small-scale fisheries sector; Whereas, particularly in view of respecting a reduction in the overall capacity of the fishing fleet provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, it is necessary to limit Community aid to final cessation of vessels and the modernization of the small fleet, while meeting the needs of the sector for small-scale fisheries as set out in the plan presented to the Commission with Community participation for part of the necessary finances; Whereas the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The small-scale fisheries zonal plan (1991 to 1992) submitted by Spain on 29 May 1991 and supplemented by it at a later date is hereby approved subject to the limits and conditions laid down in this Decision. Article 2 For guidance, Community aid for 1991 is divided as follows: (in ecus) 1. Modernization 285 000 2. Final cessation 689 500 Article 3 For the submission and examination of applications for Community aid for measures concerning modernization included in the indicative financing plan referred to in Article 2, the corresponding provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 894/87 (3) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 (4) and Decision No 88/163/EEC (5) shall apply. Article 4 Modernization measures provided for in the zonal plan must not result in an increase in the fishing capacity of the fleet (grt or kW). Article 5 By 31 July 1993 at the latest, Spain shall provide the Commission with information on the number, tonnage and power of the vessels entering and leaving service during the period covered by the plan for each category of vessels defined in the zonal plan. Article 6 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain. Done at Brussels, 12 December 1991.

{0: '100149', 1: '100160', 2: '100148', 3: '100147', 4: '100152', 5: '100143', 6: '100156', 7: '100158', 8: '100154', 9: '100153', 10: '100142', 11: '100145', 12: '100150', 13: '100162', 14: '100159', 15: '100144', 16: '100151', 17: '100157', 18: '100161', 19: '100146', 20: '100155'}

{'100149': 0, '100160': 1, '100148': 2, '100147': 3, '100152': 4, '100143': 5, '100156': 6, '100158': 7, '100154': 8, '100153': 9, '100142': 10, '100145': 11, '100150': 12, '100162': 13, '100159': 14, '100144': 15, '100151': 16, '100157': 17, '100161': 18, '100146': 19, '100155': 20}