title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/642 of 12 May 2020 approving the basic substance L-cysteine in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
                  13.5.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 150/134

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/642
         of 12 May 2020
         approving the basic substance L-cysteine in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
         (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 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 23(5) in conjunction with Article 13(2) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     On 9 February 2018 the Commission received an application from Soleo-EcoSolutions, for the approval of L-cysteine as a basic substance. That application was accompanied by the information required by the second subparagraph of Article 23(3).

                     (2)

                     The Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority ('the Authority') for scientific assistance. The Authority provided the Commission with a technical report on L-cysteine on 29 January 2019 (2). The Commission presented the review report (3) and a draft of this Regulation to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on 17 July 2019.

                     (3)

                     The information provided by the applicant shows that L-cysteine fulfils the criteria of a foodstuff as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). Moreover, it is not predominantly used for plant protection purposes but nevertheless is useful in plant protection in a product consisting of the substance. Consequently, it is to be considered as a basic substance.

                     (4)

                     It has appeared from the examinations made that L-cysteine may be expected to satisfy, in general, the requirements laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, in particular with regard to the uses which were examined and detailed in the Commission review report. It is therefore appropriate to approve L‐cysteine as a basic substance.

                     (5)

                     In accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to include certain conditions for the approval which are detailed in Annex I to this Regulation.

                     (6)

                     In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (5) should be amended accordingly.

                     (7)

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

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Approval of a basic substance
            The substance L-cysteine is approved as a basic substance as laid down in Annex I.

            Article 2
            Amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
            Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.

            Article 3
            Entry into force
            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, 12 May 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.

            (2)  EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2019. Technical report on the outcome of the consultation with Member States and EFSA on the basic substance application for L-cysteine for use in plant protection as insecticide. EFSA supporting publication 2019: EN-1562. 46 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1562.

            (3)  Final Review report for the basic substance L-cysteine finalised in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed at its meeting on 24 March 2020 in view of the approval of L-cysteine as basic substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (SANTE/11056/2019).

            (4)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

            (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (OJ L 153, 11.6.2011, p. 1).

            ANNEX I

                        Common Name, Identification Numbers

                        IUPAC Name

                        Purity (1)

                        Date of approval

                        Specific provisions

                        L-cysteine (E 920)
                        CAS No: 52-89-1
                        EINECS: 200-157-7
                        (L-cysteine hydrochloride)
                        CAS No: 7048-04-6
                        EINECS: 615-117-8
                        (L-cysteine hydrochloride monohydrate)

                        L-cysteine hydrochloride (1:1)

                        Min. 98,0 % L-cysteine hydrochloride (on anhydrous basis)
                        Food grade in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 (2).
                        max. 1,5 mg/kg As
                        max. 5 mg/kg Pb

                        2.6.2020

                        L-cysteine (E 920) shall be used as a mixture with matrix (flour, food grade) at a concentration of maximum 8% (of L-cysteine hydrochloride, on anhydrous basis) in accordance with the specific conditions included in the conclusions of the review report on L-cysteine (SANTE/11056/2019) and in particular Appendices I and II thereto.

               (1)  Further details on identity, specification and manner of use of the basic substance are provided in the review report.

               (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 of 9 March 2012 laying down specifications for food additives listed in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 83, 22.3.2012, p. 1).

            ANNEX II
            In Part C of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, the following entry is added:

                           Number

                           Common Name, Identification Numbers

                           IUPAC Name

                           Purity (1)

                           Date of approval

                           Specific provisions

                           ‘21

                           L-cysteine (E 920)
                           CAS No: 52-89-1
                           EINECS: 200-157-7
                           (L-cysteine hydrochloride)
                           CAS No: 7048-04-6
                           EINECS: 615-117-8
                           (L-cysteine hydrochloride monohydrate)

                           L-cysteine hydrochloride (1:1)

                           Min. 98,0 % L-cysteine hydrochloride (on anhydrous basis)
                           Food grade in conformity with Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.
                           max. 1,5 mg/kg As
                           max. 5 mg/kg Pb

                           2.6.2020

                           L-cysteine (E 920) shall be used as a mixture with matrix (flour, food grade) at a concentration of maximum 8% (of L-cysteine hydrochloride, on anhydrous basis) in accordance with the specific conditions included in the conclusions of the review report on L-cysteine (SANTE/11056/2019) and in particular Appendices I and II thereto.’

               (1)  Further details on identity, specification and manner of use of basic substance are provided in the review report.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/645 of 7 May 2020 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pataca de Galicia’/‘Patata de Galicia’ (PGI))

text:
                  14.5.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 151/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/645
         of 7 May 2020
         approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Pataca de Galicia’/‘Patata de Galicia’ (PGI))
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Pataca de Galicia’/‘Patata de Galicia’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2007 (2), as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1366/2011 (3).

                     (2)

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

                     (3)

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

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Pataca de Galicia’/‘Patata de Galicia ’ (PGI) are hereby approved.

            Article 2
            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, 7 May 2020.

                  For the Commission,

                  On behalf of the President,

               Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

                  Member of the Commission

            (1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

            (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2007 of 15 February 2007 registering certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Geraardsbergse mattentaart (PGI) – Pataca de Galicia or Patata de Galicia (PGI) – Poniente de Granada (PDO) – Gata-Hurdes (PDO) – Patatas de Prades or Patates de Prades (PGI) – Mantequilla de Soria (PDO) – Huile d’olive de Nîmes (PDO) – Huile d’olive de Corse or Huile d’olive de Corse-Oliu di Corsica (PDO) – Clémentine de Corse (PGI) – Agneau de Sisteron (PGI) – Connemara Hill Lamb or Uain Sléibhe Chonamara (PGI) – Sardegna (PDO) – Carota dell’Altopiano del Fucino (PGI) – Stelvio or Stilfser (PDO) – Limone Femminello del Gargano (PGI) – Azeitonas de Conserva de Elvas e Campo Maior (PDO) – Chouriça de Carne de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) – Chouriço de Abóbora de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) – Sangueira de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) – Batata de Trás-os-Montes (PGI) – Salpicão de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) – Alheira de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) – Cordeiro de Barroso, Anho de Barroso or Borrego de leite de Barroso (PGI) – Azeite do Alentejo Interior (PDO) – Paio de Beja (PGI) – Linguíça do Baixo Alentejo or Chouriço de carne do Baixo Alentejo (PGI) – Ekstra deviško oljčno olje Slovenske Istre (PDO)) (OJ L 46, 16.2.2007, p. 14).

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1366/2011 of 19 December 2011 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pataca de Galicia/Patata de Galicia (PGI)] (OJ L 341, 22.12.2011, p. 29).

            (4)  OJ C 434, 27.12.2019, p. 11.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/646 of 13 May 2020 approving the active substance Lavandulyl senecioate as a low-risk substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
                  14.5.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 151/3

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/646
         of 13 May 2020
         approving the active substance Lavandulyl senecioate as a low-risk substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
         (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 1107/2009, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 13(2) in conjunction with Article 22(1) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     In accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 Suterra Europe Biocontrol S.L. submitted to Italy on 17 July 2015 an application for the approval of the active substance Lavandulyl senecioate.

                     (2)

                     In accordance with Article 9(3) of that Regulation, Italy, as rapporteur Member State, notified the applicant, the other Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) of the admissibility of the application on 29 December 2016.

                     (3)

                     On 22 August 2017 the rapporteur Member State submitted a draft assessment report to the Commission with a copy to the Authority, assessing whether that active substance can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

                     (4)

                     The Authority complied with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In accordance with Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, it requested that the applicant supply additional information to the Member States, the Commission and the Authority. The assessment of the additional information by the rapporteur Member State was submitted to the Authority in the format of an updated draft assessment report on 9 October 2018.

                     (5)

                     On 4 January 2019 the Authority communicated to the applicant, the Member States and the Commission its conclusion (2) on whether the active substance Lavandulyl senecioate can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The Authority made its conclusion available to the public.

                     (6)

                     On 22 October 2019 the Commission presented to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed the review report for Lavandulyl senecioate and on 23 March 2020 a draft Regulation providing that Lavandulyl senecioate is approved.

                     (7)

                     The applicant was given the possibility to submit comments on the review report.

                     (8)

                     It has been established with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance, and in particular the uses which were examined and detailed in the review report, that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied.

                     (9)

                     The Commission further considers that Lavandulyl senecioate is a low-risk active substance pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Lavandulyl senecioate is not a substance of concern and fulfils the conditions set in point 5.1.3 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

                     (10)

                     It is therefore appropriate to approve Lavandulyl senecioate as a low-risk substance.

                     (11)

                     In accordance with Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 thereof and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, it is, however, necessary to provide certain conditions.

                     (12)

                     In accordance with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (3) should be amended accordingly.

                     (13)

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

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Approval of the active substance
            The active substance Lavandulyl senecioate, as specified in Annex I, is approved subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.

            Article 2
            Amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
            Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.

            Article 3
            Entry into force
            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, 13 May 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.

            (2)  EFSA Journal 2020;18(3):5588.

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (OJ L 153, 11.6.2011, p. 1).

            ANNEX I

                        Common Name, Identification Numbers

                        IUPAC Name

                        Purity (1)

                        Date of approval

                        Expiration of approval

                        Specific provisions

                        Lavandulyl senecioate
                        CAS No: 23960-07-8
                        CIPAC No: n.a.

                        (RS)-5-methyl-2-(prop-1-en-2-yl)hex-4-en-1-yl 3-methylbut-2-enoate

                        ≥ 894 g/kg

                        3 June 2020

                        3 June 2035

                        For the implementation of the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the review report on Lavandulyl senecioate, and in particular Appendices I and II thereto, shall be taken into account.
                        Member State shall assess any extension of the use pattern beyond passive dispensers, in order to establish whether the proposed extensions of use fulfil the requirements of Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of the uniform principles laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011 (2).

               (1)  Further details on identity and specification of active substance are provided in the review report.

               (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products (OJ L 155, 11.6.2011, p. 127).

            ANNEX II
            In Part D of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, the following entry is added:

                           ‘19

                           Lavandulyl senecioate
                           CAS No: 23960-07-8
                           CIPAC No: n.a.

                           (RS)-5-methyl-2-(prop-1-en-2-yl)hex-4-en-1-yl 3-methylbut-2-enoate

                           ≥ 894 g/kg

                           3 June 2020

                           3 June 2035

                           For the implementation of the uniform principles as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the review report on Lavandulyl senecioate, and in particular Appendices I and II thereto, shall be taken into account.
                           Member State shall assess any extension of the use pattern beyond passive dispensers, in order to establish whether the proposed extensions of use fulfil the requirements of Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of the uniform principles laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011 (*1).

               (*1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products (OJ L 155, 11.6.2011, p. 127).’


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/653 of 14 May 2020 correcting Implementing Regulations (EU) No 540/2011 and (EU) 2019/706 as regards the CAS number of the active substance carvone (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
                  15.5.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 152/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/653
         of 14 May 2020
         correcting Implementing Regulations (EU) No 540/2011 and (EU) 2019/706 as regards the CAS number of the active substance carvone
         (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 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 20(1) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706 (2) renewed the approval of the active substance carvone and included it in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (3).

                     (2)

                     After Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706 entered into force, an error was noted concerning the CAS number (Chemical Abstracts Number of the American Chemical Society) used for the active substance carvone in the Annexes to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706.

                     (3)

                     The CAS number is a unique chemical substance identifier, which is also used for an active substance contained in plant protection products; it is used as reference for the purpose of trade and regulatory activities for chemicals globally and not limited to pesticidal substances. The column on common name and identification numbers erroneously mention ‘carvone 244-16-8’. This specification should be replaced by ‘carvone 2244-16-8’.

                     (4)

                     The active substance Carvone has several CAS numbers. However, only one has been granted the approval as a plant protection product. The CAS numbers as mentioned in Union implementing acts authorising active substances are taken over in international databases and references are used for the purpose of subsequent authorisation of plant protection products in Member States and outside the Union. CAS number 244-16-8 does not correspond to any existing registered chemical substance; the active substance therefore would not be properly identified for the purpose of the approval of the plant protection products. Therefore, as confusion about the substance identity may arise in chemicals management and trade, a correction of the CAS number mentioned in the Annexes to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706 and consequently in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is necessary.

                     (5)

                     For reasons of clarity, it is appropriate to replace Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706 and the relevant entry 135 in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011.

                     (6)

                     In the interest of clarity and legal certainty for economic operators and enforcement authorities, this Regulation should enter into force as a matter of urgency.

                     (7)

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

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Correction to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706
            Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706 is corrected in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.

            Article 2
            Correction to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011
            The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is corrected in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.

            Article 3
            Entry into force
            This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 14 May 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.

            (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706 of 7 May 2019 renewing the approval of the active substance carvone in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 120, 8.5.2019, p. 11).

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (OJ L 153, 11.6.2011, p. 1).

            ANNEX I
            Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/706 is replaced by the following:

                           ‘Common Name, Identification Numbers

                           IUPAC Name

                           Purity (1)

                           Date of approval

                           Expiration of approval

                           Specific provisions

                           carvone
                           2244-16-8 (d-carvone = S-carvone = (+)-carvone)
                           Carvone: 602
                           d-carvone: not allocated

                           (S)-5-isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one
                           or
                           (S)-p-mentha-6,8-dien-2-one

                           923 g/kg d-carvone

                           1 August 2019

                           31 July 2034

                           For the implementation of the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the renewal report on carvone, and in particular Appendices I and II thereto, shall be taken into account.
                           In this overall assessment Member States shall pay particular attention to:

                                       —

                                       the protection of operators, ensuring that conditions of use include the application of adequate personal protective equipment.

                                 Conditions of use shall include risk mitigation measures, where appropriate. In particular, consideration should be given to the necessary time period before entry into storage rooms after the application of plant protection products containing carvone.
                           The applicant shall submit to the Commission, the Member States and the Authority confirmatory information as regards:

                                       —

                                       the effect of water treatment processes on the nature of residues present in surface and groundwater, when surface water is abstracted for drinking water.

                                 The applicant shall submit that information within two years from the date of publication, by the Commission, of a guidance document on evaluation of the effect of water treatment processes on the nature of residues present in surface and groundwater.

               (1)  Further details on the identity and the specification of the active substance are provided in the renewal report.’

            ANNEX II
            In Part B of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, entry 135 on carvone is replaced by the following entry:

                           No

                           Common Name, Identification Numbers

                           IUPAC Name

                           Purity (1)

                           Date of approval

                           Expiration of approval

                           Specific provisions

                           ‘135

                           carvone
                           2244-16-8 (d-carvone = S-carvone = (+)-carvone)
                           Carvone: 602
                           d-carvone: not allocated

                           (S)-5-isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one
                           Or
                           (S)-p-mentha-6,8-dien-2-one

                           923 g/kg d-carvone

                           1 August 2019

                           31 July 2034

                           For the implementation of the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the renewal report on carvone, and in particular Appendices I and II thereto, shall be taken into account.
                           In this overall assessment Member States shall pay particular attention to:

                                       —

                                       the protection of operators, ensuring that conditions of use include the application of adequate personal protective equipment.

                                 Conditions of use shall include risk mitigation measures, where appropriate. In particular, consideration should be given to the necessary time period before entry into storage rooms after the application of plant protection products containing carvone.
                           The applicant shall submit to the Commission, the Member States and the Authority confirmatory information as regards:

                                       —

                                       the effect of water treatment processes on the nature of residues present in surface and groundwater, when surface water is abstracted for drinking water.

                                 The applicant shall submit that information within two years from the date of publication, by the Commission, of a guidance document on evaluation of the effect of water treatment processes on the nature of residues present in surface and groundwater.’

               (1)  Further details on the identity and the specification of the active substance are provided in the renewal report.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/658 of 15 May 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey following an interim review pursuant to Article 19(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council

text:
                  18.5.2020

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 155/3

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/658
         of 15 May 2020
         amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey following an interim review pursuant to Article 19(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 19 thereof,
         Whereas:
         1.   PROCEDURE

         1.1.   Previous investigations and measures in force

                     (1)

                     By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 (2) (‘the original Regulation’), the Commission imposed definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (‘the measures in force’). The duties ranged from 6,9 % to 9,5 %.

                     (2)

                     On 4 June 2018, following a partial interim review concerning subsidisation of all exporting producers, the Commission decided to maintain the measures as originally established (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823 (3)). It found that the legislative change in the Turkish legislation on subsidies to trout producers that was subject to the review did not justify revising the countervailing duties to all trout producers in Turkey. However, it was observed that the impact of the legislative change differed at individual company level and depended on the specific situation of each of the companies (4).

               1.2.   Request for a partial interim review

                     (3)

                     On 5 June 2018, one of the exporting producer in Turkey, ‘BAFA Su Ürünleri Yavru Üretim Merkezi Sanayi Ticaret AŞ’, part of the Kiliç Group (‘the applicant’), lodged a request for a partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation as far as it is concerned.

                     (4)

                     The applicant argued that the circumstances with regard to the subsidisation in Turkey on which the existing measures were based in relation to it have changed, and that the changes were of a lasting nature in so far the applicant was concerned.

               1.3.   Initiation of a partial interim review

                     (5)

                     Having determined, after informing the Member States, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced on 22 May 2019, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘Notice of Initiation’) (5), the initiation of the partial interim review pursuant to Article 19(1) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of subsidy as far as the applicant is concerned.

               1.4.   Review investigation period

                     (6)

                     The review investigation period (‘the RIP’) covered the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018.

               1.5.   Interested parties

                     (7)

                     In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to participate in the investigation. In addition, it specifically informed the applicant, the Union industry (the producers association) and the Turkish authorities of the initiation of the partial interim review.

                     (8)

                     Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the Notice of Initiation.

                     (9)

                     The Danish Aquaculture Association, the producers association representing the complainant in the original investigation (‘the DAO’) made a submission. It was of the view that the changes implemented by the Turkish authorities to the legal framework could not be considered being of a lasting nature and that the amount of subsidies to trout producers, including to the applicant, was still high. It also considered that the applicant could not request the Commission to review its subsidy rate based solely on the depreciation of the Turkish lira, and that the Commission should take into consideration other subsidy schemes to trout producers that the applicant could benefit from. The DAO considered that the Commission should take into consideration also other factors such as the fact that the Turkish import prices considerably undercut the Union prices.

                     (10)

                     The Commission recalled that the request for the interim review was not based only on the depreciation of the Turkish lira as claimed by the DAO. Rather, the main reason for the review request was the claim that the level of subsidies to the applicant decreased after the legislative change in Turkey in 2016. Second, it also observed that the review was limited in scope to the assessment of the level of subsidisation as far as the applicant is concerned. The level of undercutting (that related to an assessment of an injury to the Union industry) was not subject of this review. Accordingly, the Commission assessed the level of subsidies with respect to the applicant as well as the lasting nature of the changes below in recitals (30) to (57).

                     (11)

                     Following disclosure and additional disclosure, the DAO reiterated its view that the fluctuation of a currency could not be considered as a change of the lasting nature and the Commission should have considered how much the depreciation contributed to the evolution of the subsidisation level.

                     (12)

                     The Commission accepted that the exchange rate for the currency in Turkey fluctuated since the original investigation, and that as such, the exchange rate fluctuation could not be considered as a change of a lasting nature. However, it disagreed with DAO that it should have treated the exchange rate of the original investigation as the ‘reference’ in consideration in order to evaluate an effect of its fluctuation on the calculation of the amount of subsidisation calculation. While currency fluctuations inevitably affect the new subsidy calculation for the applicant, the reason for the recalculation is the impact of the legislative change of 2016 on the applicant. The Commission therefore rejected the claim.

               1.6.   Questionnaire and verification visit

                     (13)

                     The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary to evaluate the impact on the applicant of the legal changes to the implementation of the direct subsidy scheme on the applicant.

                     (14)

                     The Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant (including the related companies) and to the Turkish authorities. Complete questionnaire replies were received from both of these parties. The Commission verified the information provided in the questionnaire reply at the premises of the applicant.

               1.7.   Disclosure

                     (15)

                     On 27 February 2020, the Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to propose to amend the duty rate applicable to the applicant. Interested parties were given the opportunity to comment by 12 March 2020, and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Commission considered the comments made by the interested parties and took them into consideration where appropriate. Following disclosure, the Commission held a hearing with the applicant on 12 March 2020.

                     (16)

                     After having assessed the comments submitted by the parties after disclosure, the Commission made an additional disclosure on 3 April 2020. It informed all the interested parties of its intention to amend the duty rate to the applicant proposed in the initial General Disclosure Document. Interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on the newly proposed facts and considerations by 8 April 2020, and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Commission considered the new comments made by the interested parties and took them into consideration where appropriate.

               2.   PRODUCT UNDER REVIEW AND THE LIKE PRODUCT

         2.1.   Product under review

                     (17)

                     The product under review is rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss):

                                 —

                                 live weighing 1,2 kg or less each, or

                                 —

                                 fresh, chilled, frozen and/or smoked:

                                 —

                                 in the form of whole fish (with heads on), whether or not gilled, whether or not gutted, weighing 1,2 kg or less each, or

                                 —

                                 with heads off, whether or not gilled, whether or not gutted, weighing 1 kg or less each, or

                                 —

                                 in the form of fillets weighing 400 g or less each,
                                 originating in Turkey and currently falling under CN codes ex 0301 91 90, ex 0302 11 80, ex 0303 14 90, ex 0304 42 90, ex 0304 82 90 and ex 0305 43 00 (TARIC codes 0301919011, 0302118011, 0303149011, 0304429010, 0304829010 and 0305430011) (‘the product under review’).

                     (18)

                     As in the original investigation, the Commission found that the products produced in the Union and the products produced in Turkey are like products within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.

               3.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

         3.1.   Original investigation

                     (19)

                     Subsidies to trout production in Turkey are regulated by a decree adopted by the Turkish Government on an annual basis. The decree provides for the basic conditions and subsidy amounts to aquaculture production in Turkey. The procedures and principles regarding the implementation of the decree are further provided for by communiqués issued by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock every year.

                     (20)

                     In the original investigation, subsidies were granted on the basis of Decree No 2013/4463 of 7 March 2013 on agricultural subsidies in 2013 and published in the Official Gazette No 28612 on 8 April 2013 (‘decree of 2013’). The decree related to trout produced in 2013.

                     (21)

                     Under the decree, subsidies were granted to all producers of trout possessing a valid production licence relating to a fish farming unit. A production licence could relate to production in the sea, in a dam, or to a production situated inland. A trout producer could have several production licences (fish farming units) situated in the same dam or in the same area in the sea.

                     (22)

                     The production under each of these licences was eligible for subsidies up to the following limits: 0,65 Turkish Lira (‘TL’) per kg of trout for the production up to 250 tonnes a year; for the production from 251 to 500 tonnes, trout producers received half of the amount (0,325 TL/kg). No subsidy could be received for the production above 500 tonnes.

                     (23)

                     In the original investigation period, the applicant had 13 fish farming units (‘farms’) (corresponding to 13 licences). It benefitted from subsidies for 11 of its farming units.

               3.2.   Findings in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823

                     (24)

                     In Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823, the Commission assessed the legislative change of 2016 and its impact on the overall level of subsidisation of trout producers in Turkey.

                     (25)

                     It found that in 2016 subsidies to producers of trout were granted on the basis of Decree No 2016/8791 (6) regarding the agricultural supports to be provided in 2016 (‘decree of 2016’). Furthermore, Communiqué No 2016/33 (7) regarding aquaculture support detailed the conditions for the subsidies to be granted.

                     (26)

                     Whilst the amount of subsidisation per TL/kg remained at the 2013 levels, a new Article 4.16 of the Decree of 2016 excluded from the subsidy farms with licences that were ‘situated in the same potential area determined by the Ministry, in the same dam reservoir or in the regionalised dam reservoir located in the same zone’.

                     (27)

                     Pursuant to that Article and contrary to the situation during the original investigation, in the case where a trout producer had more than one production licence (or ‘fish farming unit’) in the same potential zone in the sea, as defined by the Ministry, in the same reservoir (dam), or in the same reservoirs located in the same regions, which belonged to the same person or the same enterprise/company, those licences or fish farming units were regarded as one single licence or unit belonging to that company, and the direct subsidy was to be paid according to that interpretation.

                     (28)

                     The Commission, however, concluded that this limitation did not substantially affect the overall level of subsidies received for an important part of the trout producers in Turkey as a whole. Moreover, since the Turkish government had introduced new subsidies, based on the budgetary forecast for the following years, the Commission concluded that the decrease in subsidies overall may only be temporary and could not be considered as a lasting change.

                     (29)

                     At the same time, the Commission observed that the impact differed at individual company level depending on the specific situation related to the production of each company. The trout production in Turkey is based on family businesses and it is a fragmented sector mainly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises. For these small companies, if they had one or little farms in the same area, the number of licences for which it could receive subsidies would remain the same. However, as of 2016, companies, which had more than one licence in the same region or zone under the old regime, could only receive direct subsidies for one of them. Therefore, while most of the (small) companies were affected only to a limited extent or not at all by the 2016 reform, companies or groups of companies like the applicant were likely to be affected by the change more substantially.

               3.3.   Impact of the legislative change on the applicant and other subsidies received by the applicant in the review investigation period (‘RIP’)

         3.3.1.   Direct subsidies to the applicant

                     (30)

                     In 2018, subsidies to producers of trout were granted on the basis of Decree No 2018/11460 (8) regarding the agricultural support to be provided in 2018 (‘decree of 2018’). Furthermore, Communiqué No 2018/24 (9) regarding aquaculture support detailed the conditions for the subsidies to be granted. As confirmed in the originalinvestigation, those measures amount to countervailable subsidies (see recitals (61) to (62) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1195/2014 (10)). The Commission revised the amount of subsidisation conferred on the applicant during the RIP.

                     (31)

                     In the RIP (2018), the applicant had 11 farming units. The farms were situated in 3 different regions. Before the legislative change, the applicant would be eligible to receive subsidies for all of its 11 farms (see recital (22)). However, as a consequence of the legislative change in 2016 and in line with the legislation in force during the RIP, it was only eligible to receive subsidies for the product under review for one farm per each region.

                     (32)

                     In the RIP, the applicant thus benefitted from subsidies only for 2 of its 11 farms (11), up to the limits mentioned in the decree of 2018 below (compared to 11 farms that would have been eligible for subsidies under the legislation in place before 2016).

                     (33)

                     The amounts of subsidies during the RIP were the following: up to the production of 250 tonnes, the subsidy was set at 0,75 TL/kg; between 250 tonnes and 500 tonnes, the subsidy was set at 0,375 TL/kg and no subsidies was granted for the production above 500 tonnes (12).

                     (34)

                     Following the same methodology as established in the original investigation, for the own farmed fish, the total benefit for the applicant was the average direct subsidy amount received during the RIP. For the purchased fish, the benefit was calculated on the basis of the total subsidies granted by the Turkish authorities and divided by the total amount of trout production in Turkey. The calculation of the benefit resulted in an ad valorem subsidy rate of 1,44 %.

                     (35)

                     Following disclosure, the applicant claimed that the support scheme for ‘Good farming practices’ was terminated in 2019 and that the Commission thus should not take it into consideration for the calculation of the indirect subsidy. The applicant also argued that the level of the administration fee to be deducted from the subsidy amount was not 0,2 % but 2 %.

                     (36)

                     The Commission accepted these two claims and recalculated the subsidy rates accordingly. The calculation of the benefit resulted in a new ad valorem subsidy rate of 1,42 %.

                     (37)

                     The applicant also argued that the Commission should have considered that the eligibility criteria changed in 2019. According to the new conditions, a farmer could benefit 0,75 TL/kg for a maximum of 350 tonnes of production. Compared to 2018, the maximum benefit per fish licence thus decreased. The Commission considered that it should base its calculations only on the verified data from the RIP. It therefore rejected the claim.

                     (38)

                     Following disclosure, the DAO also referred to the new eligibility conditions for the direct subsidies in 2019. According to the DAO, in 2019, a farmer producing between 250 and 350 tonnes could receive more subsidies than in 2018. The DAO thus requested the Commission to determine if in 2019, the applicant could purchase the fish from these farmers, and thus indirectly benefit from more subsidies than in 2018.

                     (39)

                     The Commission first recalled that in 2019, the maximum subsidy amount to be received per fish licence decreased (see recital (37)). Therefore, farmers farming more than 350 tonnes of trout received less subsidies per fish licence. If the applicant had purchased fish from these farmers, it would have thus benefitted from less subsidies than in 2018. Secondly, as it was the case in the RIP, the calculation of the indirect subsidies had to be based on an average subsidy per ton of purchased fish. Such average could not reflect the situation of each individual farmer from which the applicant bought fish. The Commission therefore rejected the claim.

               3.3.2.   Support for breeding trout in hatcheries protected from diseases

                     (40)

                     In 2018, the Turkish authorities introduced a new support scheme for breeding trout in hatcheries protected from diseases. This new scheme was not examined in the original investigation. The conditions and the amounts of the support were specified in the decree of 2018 and Communiqué No 2018/24 (see recital 30).

                     (41)

                     If a company operates a hatchery for trout that fulfils certain safety criteria, it could benefit from the subsidy of 60 TL per piece for a maximum of 10 000 pieces (maximum amount of subsidy to be received was 600 000 TL per year).

                     (42)

                     The Commission considered that the support (in the form of a direct grant) constituted subsidies for trout production similar to direct subsidies, namely a financial contribution conferring a benefit according to Articles 3(1)(a)(i) and 3(2) of the basic Regulation. Since the support was granted to the trout producers, the Commission concluded that the scheme was specific within the meaning of Article 4(2)(a) of the basic Regulation. The benefit consisted in direct grants to trout producers fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

                     (43)

                     It thus concluded that the support could be considered as a countervailable subsidy.

                     (44)

                     During the verification visit, the company’s production manager mentioned that the company had invested and would further invest into an equipment in order to become eligible for the subsidy in the years to come. However, the company’s CEO and the legal representatives refuted that information claiming that such decision was subject to an approval of board members and was in any case not foreseen.

                     (45)

                     Given the clear and unambiguous information by the production manager on investment measures taken in the past and contradictory statements of the company’s representatives during the verification visit, the Commission considered it likely that the company would benefit in the future from the scheme and calculated a maximum benefit, expressed as an ad valorem subsidy rate of 0,72 %. It communicated its intention to the parties in the General Disclosure Document.

                     (46)

                     Following disclosure, the Turkish authorities and the applicant objected to the Commission’s intention expressed in the disclosure document to countervail the scheme. They submitted that the applicant did not qualify for the scheme and had not made any application to the Government with regard to the scheme. There was also no payment by the Government to the applicant in either 2018 or 2019 under the scheme. The Turkish government also pointed out that the scheme was in any event limited to three years.

                     (47)

                     The applicant further submitted on 23 March 2020 an official letter to rebut the Commission’s doubts on whether it would likely benefit from any subsidy under the scheme in the future. The applicant undertook not to make any investment until 2025 to become eligible under the scheme. Furthermore, in case the investment is made in 2025 or afterwards, no application will be made by any related company of the Kiliç Group under this scheme.

                     (48)

                     Following the submission of the letter by the applicant, the DAO submitted that the letter was a self-constituted piece of evidence that the Commission should not take into consideration. It argued that in addition, the applicant did not make any commitments vis-à-vis other subsidy schemes.

                     (49)

                     Based on the above facts the Commission re-assessed whether it was likely that the applicant will receive benefits under the scheme in the future. It was reassured by the Government’s comments that the applicant was not eligible under the scheme and had not made any application during the RIP or 2019. Moreover, it took note of the company’s letter of 23 March 2020 not to become eligible at least until 2025. With regard to the DAO’s argument that the letter was a self-constituted piece of evidence that arrived after disclosure only, the Commission took the view that the letter was submitted upon disclosure, i.e. in due time in exercise of the applicant’s rights and thus, its substance cannot be disregarded. Moreover, the Commission has a duty to assess all comments received in earnest, otherwise the purpose of disclosure would be frustrated. The letter amounts to a firm commitment by the applicant and relates to the assessment the likelihood of receiving compensatory benefits under this scheme in the future. Therefore, the fact that the letter does not mention other subsidy schemes is irrelevant. Against that background, the Commission decided not to countervail this scheme.

                     (50)

                     After the additional disclosure, the DAO restated that the Commission has the duty to take into account factors relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period, and that the Commission should have confirmed its original assessment by including the support in the calculation. The DAO particularly objected to the Commission decision to take the letter from the applicant as a reliable evidence. It argued that the board decision was not binding and could be changed any time. In its view, it constituted a breach of the fundamental legal principle according to which a company shall not be allowed to create an evidence in its own favour, against the information from the verification visit on investment measure taken in the past.

                     (51)

                     The Commission considered that the decision not to countervail the scheme was not based solely on the letter of commitment by the applicant but also on other factual evidence such as the information from the Government that the applicant did neither apply for the support nor was it eligible under the scheme. The Commission re-iterated its duty to assess all the information and evidence received after disclosure, and in this context, the fact the applicant made the commitment for the purpose was not decisive for the assessment of the likelihood that the applicant benefits from the scheme in the future. It further recalled that it was undisputed that the applicant had not made all the necessary investment to become eligible for support under the scheme. The Commission thus rejected the claim.

                     (52)

                     Finally, as the issue of countervailing any support for breeding trout in hatcheries protected from diseases had become moot, the Commission did not enter into DAO’s comments on the proper calculation of the future benefits of this scheme.

               3.3.3.   Subsidised loans

                     (53)

                     During the RIP, the applicant benefitted from six preferential loans, to finance working capital. The loans were granted by the Agricultural Bank of the Republic of Turkey (Türkiye Cumhurriyetti Ziraat bankasi or ‘Ziraat Bankasi’) for loans relating to agricultural production specifically and by Türk Eximbank (13) for loans linked to the export activities. It line with the findings with the original investigation (14), and since no evidence was provided that the situation had changed, the Commission established that both banks implement the State policy and are public bodies within the meaning of the basic Regulation.

                     (54)

                     The relevant legal basis were Decree 2018/11188 (Ziraat Bank Low Interest Investment and Operation Loan on Agricultural Production) and Rediscount program of Türk Eximbank (15).

                     (55)

                     The benefit to the applicant consisted in providing lower interest rates than the one normally available on the market. The Commission allocated the benefit related to the rediscount program on the export sales while the other subsidised loans for the Group’s entire production were allocated on the total sales. The total benefit of the six loans resulted in an ad valorem subsidy rate of 0,15 %.

                     (56)

                     Following disclosure, the applicant claimed that for one of the contested loans it had to pay a commission while the benchmark loan was free of the commission. It argued that the Commission should have reduced the benefit accordingly. The Commission found that for a fair comparison, calculations had to be on comparing the interest rates only, free of any other banking charges on any side, for the actual or the benchmark loan. The Commission thus rejected the claim.

                     (57)

                     Furthermore, the applicant contested that the Commission had used the same benchmark to establish a benefit for two of the countervailed loans that had been granted in different periods. In addition, it submitted that the interest rate for one of the contested loans was set on a monthly (and not the yearly) basis and therefore, the interest rate the applicant received was set at a market rate. The Commission accepted both the claims. This resulted in a new ad valorem subsidy rate for these loans of 0,13 %.

               3.4.   New countervailing rates for the applicant

                     (58)

                     The total benefit to the applicant resulted in an ad valorem subsidy rate of 1,55 %:

                                 Direct subsidy

                                 1,42 %

                                 Subsidised loans

                                 0,13 %

                                    Total

                                    1,55 %

                     (59)

                     The above conclusions relate to the specific situation of the applicant and thus do not affect the level of the subsidy rates for companies listed in the annex of the original Regulation.

                     (60)

                     After disclosure and the additional disclosure, the Turkish authorities argued that the Commission should have re-calculated the subsidy rate to ‘all other companies’. The Commission rejected the argument. It reiterated that the partial interim review and its findings on significant decrease of the subsidy level related to the applicant only. The Commission also recalled that the findings vis-à-vis all other Turkish trout producers remained unchanged. In this respect, the Commission further noted that, as stated in the Notice of Initiation (Section 5), if any interested party considers that a review of the measures applicable to it is warranted, that party may request a review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

                     (61)

                     Following disclosure the Turkish authorities submitted that if the Commission disregarded the benefit under ‘Support for breeding trout in hatcheries protected from diseases’, the total ad valorem subsidy rate was de minimis. It repeated this claim after the additional disclosure. The Commission recalled that the de minimis threshold is 1 % but for developing countries, it is 2 %. It further recalled that for the application of Article 14(5), a country is considered as a developing country if it is listed in Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ L 303, 31.10.2012, p. 1) (16). As Turkey is not included in the list of eligible countries under that Regulation the Commission rejected the claim.

               3.5.   Significant change of circumstances and lasting nature of the legislative change

                     (62)

                     The above findings relating to the specific situation of the applicant confirmed the findings of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823, summarised in recitals (24) to (29) above. While the above Regulation assessed the overall situation vis-à-vis all trout producers in Turkey (i.e. a situation of an average trout producer), it also found that following the legislative change in 2016, some trout producers received substantially less subsidies (recital 49 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823).

                     (63)

                     The Commission concluded that this was the case of the applicant. It first observed that the newly calculated ad valorem subsidy rate of 1,55 % represented a significant decrease compared to the rate of 9,5 % established in the original investigation.

                     (64)

                     Second, the applicant could not benefit from many other subsidy schemes to fully compensate the decrease of the direct subsidy (17).

                     (65)

                     Furthermore, the legislative change that led to the decrease of the number of fish farms was introduced in 2016 and it remained in place in the RIP (2018) and in 2019 (18), i.e. already for a period of 4 years. The Turkish Government has not communicated to the Commission any plans to reinstitute the pre-2016 eligibility criteria. Therefore, the Commission considered the change from 2016 as the lasting change in the sense of Article 19(4) of the basic Regulation.

                     (66)

                     After disclosure and the additional disclosure, the DAO contested the Commission’s finding that the decrease in subsidies received by the applicant was of a lasting nature. In its view, the Commission should have assessed the lasting nature of the subsidisation system as a whole and should not have focused on the 2016 change in one of the subsidy schemes only. The DAO further argued that after 2016, the Turkish authorities kept introducing new subsidy schemes to compensate the decrease in subsidisation due to the 2016 change, namely subsidies for closed system production, subsidies for trout over 1 kg, subsidies for good farming practices and subsidies for fish labelling. The DAO also argued that the Commission did not take into account in its calculation the new eligibility conditions of the ‘Support breeding trout in hatcheries protected from diseases’ and the increase in 2019 of the maximum amount to be received. Moreover, the DAO considered that any new investment by the applicant to reach the support would be done by a subsidised government loan.

                     (67)

                     As explained above, the Commission assessed not only the effect of the legislative change of 2016 on the applicant but also any new subsidy scheme that the applicant could benefit from in the RIP and after. It found that the applicant was not eligible to receive any subsidies for closed system production scheme since its trout production is situated in dam reservoirs and not in a closed system fulfilling the eligibility requirements. The Commission also found that the subsidies for fish labelling and for good farming practices were terminated in 2018 and in 2019 respectively. Moreover, the Commission found and verified that the subsidy for trout over 1 kg was to benefit trout over 1,2 kg, i.e. the trout which does not fall under the definition of the product concerned. Finally, as explained in recitals (40) to (52), the applicant did not benefit from the support for breeding hatcheries protected from diseases in the RIP and there was no likelihood that the applicant would receive such support until 2025. In view of the re-assessment of new information as explained in recitals (46) and (47), the Commission concluded that the applicant would not benefit in the future of any subsidy from the scheme ‘Support breeding trout in hatcheries protected from diseases’.

                     (68)

                     The Commission also considered that the claim that the applicant would finance any new equipment from a subsidised loan was based on a possibility rather than on any concrete evidence. The Commission therefore rejected the argument.

                     (69)

                     Based on the above the Commission maintained that pursuant to Article 19(4) of the basic Regulation and based on the above findings, the circumstances with regard the subsidisation changed significantly and the decrease of direct subsidies is of a lasting nature in so far the applicant is concerned.

               3.6.   Conclusion

                     (70)

                     It follows from the above that the countervailing duty for the applicant should be amended as set out in Section 3.4.

                     (71)

                     The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19),

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 is amended as follows as far as the applicant is concerned:

                        Company

                        Countervailing duty

                        TARIC additional code

                        BAFA Su Ürünleri Yavru Üretim Merkezi Sanayi Ticaret AŞ

                        1,5 %

                        B965

            Article 2
            This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 15 May 2020.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Ursula VON DER LEYEN

            (1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

            (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 of 26 February 2015 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, p. 12).

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823 of 4 June 2018 terminating the partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Turkey (OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 14).

            (4)  Recital (49) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823.

            (5)  Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Turkey (OJ C 176, 22.5.2019, p. 24).

            (6)  Turkish Decree No 2016/8791 on agricultural subsidies in 2016, dated 25 April 2016 (implemented retroactively as of 1 January 2016).

            (7)  The Communiqué named ‘Communiqué on Aquaculture Support’ numbered 2016/33 regarding the implementation of Decree No 2016/8791 was published in the Official Journal on 3 August 2016.

            (8)  Turkish Decree No 2018/11460 on agricultural subsidies in 2018, dated 2 February 2018 (implemented retroactively as of 1 January 2018).

            (9)  The Communiqué named ‘Communiqué on Aquaculture Support’ numbered 2018/24 regarding the implementation of Decree No 2018/11460 was published in the Official Journal on 29 May 2018.

            (10)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1195/2014 of 29 October 2014 imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (OJ L 319, 6.11.2014, p. 1).

            (11)  In one of the regions the applicant farmed a trout over 1,2 kg (product not concerned by the investigation) and it did not use the farm to farm trout falling within the scope of the product concerned. That is why it benefitted from subsidies for 2 out of the 3 eligible regions.

            (12)  The ceilings were introduced by legislation adopted in 2017.

            (13)  The programme can be implemented directly by Türk Eximbank or with an involvement of private banks.

            (14)  See Recitals (67) and (69) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1195/2014.

            (15)  Details are provided within Implementation Principles and Circular on Export and Foreign Exchange Earning Services Rediscount Credits (Rediscount Programme).

            (16)  Commission Implementing Decision 2014/918/EU of 16 December 2014 terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning the imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China, India and Vietnam (OJ L 360, 17.12.2014, p. 65), recital (76), footnote 3.

            (17)  As explained in recitals (32) to (41), the benefit from the Support for breeding trout in hatcheries protected from diseases and from subsidised loans increased the subsidy rate for the Kiliç Group only by 0,72 % and it did not thus compensate the decrease in the direct subsidies.

            (18)  In 2019, the maximum amount of subsidies per licence was 0,75 TL/kg for a maximum of 350 000 kg. Compared to 2018 it represented a decrease in the overall the maximum amount to be received per fish licence.

            (19)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1256 of 23 July 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/943 on emergency measures suspending imports of dried beans from Nigeria, as regards extending its period of application (Text with EEA relevance.)

text:
                  24.7.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 196/3

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/1256
         of 23 July 2019
         amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/943 on emergency measures suspending imports of dried beans from Nigeria, as regards extending its period of application
         (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 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), and in particular Article 53(1) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles governing food and food safety at Union and national level. It provides for emergency measures to be taken by the Commission, where there is evidence that food imported from a third country is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health.

                     (2)

                     Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/943 (2) suspended the import into the Union of dried beans under CN code 0713 39 00 from Nigeria due to the high number of cases of contamination with an unauthorised active substance dichlorvos at levels largely exceeding the acute reference dose tentatively established by the European Food Safety Authority. Pending the implementation by Nigeria of the appropriate risk-management measures, the prohibition was to apply until 30 June 2016.

                     (3)

                     Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/874 (3) extended the suspension of the import of dried beans from Nigeria until 30 June 2019 and applied it to two additional CN codes, 0713 35 00 and 0713 90 00, due to continued presence of dichlorvos in dried beans imported from Nigeria and the impossibility to achieve in short time compliance with Union food law requirements regarding pesticide residues.

                     (4)

                     In February 2018, Nigeria submitted a new action plan and stated that its objective was to control and streamline in particular dried beans, strengthen the legal and regulatory environment and build fundamentals for quality production of dried beans. However, the Commission understands that Nigeria has not yet implemented that action plan, nor granted any budgetary means for its implementation. The stage of implementation by Nigeria of the action plan as regards the integrated pest management and maximum residue levels of pesticides, do not allow the conclusion that Union requirements as regards pesticide residues on the relevant dried beans are met.

                     (5)

                     The duration of the imports suspension should therefore be extended for an additional period of three years, to allow Nigeria to implement the appropriate risk management measures and provide the required guarantees.

                     (6)

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

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Article 5 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/943 is replaced by the following:

                  ‘Article 5
                  This Regulation shall enter into force the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
                  It shall apply until 30 June 2022.’

            Article 2
            This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 23 July 2019.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Jean-Claude JUNCKER

            (1)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

            (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/943 of 18 June 2015 on emergency measures suspending imports of dried beans from Nigeria and amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (OJ L 154, 19.6.2015, p. 8).

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/874 of 1 June 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/943 on emergency measures suspending imports of dried beans from Nigeria (OJ L 145, 2.6.2016, p. 18).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1683 of 2 October 2019 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Crème d’Isigny (PDO))

text:
                  9.10.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 258/8

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/1683
         of 2 October 2019
         approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Crème d’Isigny’ (PDO))
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Crème d’Isigny’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (2). These amendments include changing the name ‘Crème d’Isigny’ to ‘Crème d’Isigny’/‘Crème fraîche d’Isigny’.

                     (2)

                     By letter of 16 October 2017, the French authorities notified the Commission that a transitional period under Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, ending on 31 December 2022, had been granted to ten operators who are established on their territory and meet the conditions laid down in that Article pursuant to the Order of 12 September 2017 on amendments to the specifications for the protected designations of origin ‘Beurre d’Isigny’ and ‘Crème d’Isigny’, published on 20 September 2017 in the Official Journal of the French Republic. By letter of 26 September 2018, the same authorities submitted the text of a new Order of 30 August 2018 amending the Order of 12 September 2017 and including the names of those operators. During the national opposition procedure, the operators, who had been legally marketing ‘Crème d’Isigny’ continuously for at least five years prior to submission of the application, lodged an objection. Six operators objected to the following provision: ‘Each lactating cow must be allocated at least 0,35 hectares of meadow (natural, temporary or annual), of which at least 0,2 hectares are pasture, or at least 0,1 hectares are pasture supplemented with hay.’ The operators in question are: GAEC des Normandes (SIRET: 38531072700016), GAEC des Quesnel (SIRET: 41022988100011), GAEC du Chalet (SIRET: 34005162200017), GAEC de la Cour des Mares (SIRET: 34897314000026), GAEC du Hameau (SIRET: 38259121200016) and GAEC du Petit Flot (SIRET: 43783781800016). Two operators objected to the following provision: ‘For the minimum period of 7 months when the cows are put out to pasture, on average at least 40 % of the feed ration, expressed as dry matter, must consist of fresh grass or hay.’ The operators in question are: EARL des Clôtures (SIRET: 51075733900013) and GAEC du Clos Roset (SIRET: 48310227300016). Two operators objected to the following provision: ‘For the rest of the year (non-grazing period), the proportion (of fresh grass or hay) in the daily feed ration may not be less than 20 %, expressed as dry matter.’ The operators in question are: GAEC de la Ronchette (SIRET: 49754563200018) and GAEC du Village Culot.

                     (3)

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

                     (4)

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

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Crème d’Isigny’ (PDO) are hereby approved.

            Article 2
            The protection provided under Article 1 is subject to the transitional period granted by France under Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 to operators meeting the conditions laid down in that Article, pursuant to the Orders of 12 September 2017 and 30 August 2018 on amendments to the specifications for the protected designations of origin ‘Beurre d’Isigny’ and ‘Crème d’Isigny’ published, on 20 September 2017 and 6 September 2018 respectively, in the Official Journal of the French Republic.

            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, 2 October 2019.

                  For the Commission,

                  On behalf of the President,

               Phil HOGAN

                  Member of the Commission

            (1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

            (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1).

            (3)  OJ C 176, 22.5.2019, p. 7.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1685 of 4 October 2019 designating a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare for poultry and other small farmed animals (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
                  9.10.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 258/11

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/1685
         of 4 October 2019
         designating a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare for poultry and other small farmed animals
         (Text with EEA relevance)
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 95(1) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/329 (2) designated the consortium led by Wageningen Livestock Research and also composed of Aarhus University and Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, as a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare responsible for supporting horizontal activities of the Commission and of the Member States in the area of welfare requirements for animals, which is referred to in Article 1(2)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. According to the tasks set out in the European Union reference centres’ multiannual work programme, the activities of this European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare focus on the welfare of pigs.

                     (2)

                     Subsequently, in accordance with Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625, the Commission carried out a public call for the selection and designation of a second European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare, which should support the horizontal activities of the Commission and of the Member States in relation to the application of the rules laying down welfare requirements for poultry and other small farmed animals.

                     (3)

                     The evaluation and selection committee appointed for that public call concluded that the consortium led by the Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation (France), and also composed of the Institut de Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (Spain), Aarhus Universitet – Institut for Husdyrvidenskab (Denmark), and Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna (Italy) complies with the requirements laid down in Article 95(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 and could be responsible for the tasks set out in Article 96 of that Regulation, as regards poultry and other small farmed animals.

                     (4)

                     That consortium should therefore be designated as a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare in relation to poultry and other small farmed animals, responsible for supporting tasks insofar as they will be included in the European Union reference centres’ annual or multiannual work programmes. The annual or multiannual work programmes are required to be established in conformity with the objectives and priorities of the relevant work programmes adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

                     (5)

                     Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 requires that the designation of a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare is to be limited in time or reviewed regularly. Therefore, the designation of the European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare for poultry and other small farmed animals should be reviewed every five years.

                     (6)

                     The designated European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare for poultry and other small farmed animals should be given sufficient time to prepare its work programme for the next budgetary period. Therefore, this Regulation should apply from 1 January 2020,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1

               1.   The following consortium shall be designated as a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare responsible for supporting horizontal activities of the Commission and of the Member States in the area of welfare requirements for poultry and other small farmed animals:

                           Name

                           :

                           Consortium led by Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation (France), and also composed of Institut de Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (Spain), Aarhus Universitet – Institut for Husdyrvidenskab (Denmark), and Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell’Emilia Romagna (Italy)

                           Address

                           :

                                       14 rue Pierre et Marie Curie

                                       94701 Maisons-Alfort Cedex

                                       FRANCE

               2.   The designation shall be reviewed every five years from the day of application of this Regulation.

            Article 2
            This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
            It shall apply from 1 January 2020.

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 4 October 2019.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Jean-Claude JUNCKER

            (1)  OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1.

            (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/329 of 5 March 2018 designating a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (OJ L 63, 6.3.2018, p. 13).

            (3)  Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material, amending Council Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/EC and 2008/90/EC, Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 882/2004 and (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 1).