title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle Industries

text:
               10.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 5/27

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/28
   of 9 January 2018
   re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle Industries
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to 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 (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
   Whereas:
   A.   MEASURES IN FORCE AND JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS

   1.   Measures in force

               (1)

               In 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 (2), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the original measures’) following an expiry review under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

               (2)

               In 2013, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (3) (‘the contested Regulation’), the Council extended the original measures to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (‘the anti-circumvention measures’ or ‘the extended measures’) following an anti-circumvention investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

         2.   Judgments of the General Court of the European Union and the Court of Justice of the European Union

               (3)

               On 9 August 2013, a Sri Lankan producer, City Cycle Industries (‘City Cycle’) lodged an application at the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) seeking the annulment of the contested Regulation in so far as it applies to this producer (4). In its judgment of 19 March 2015 (5), the General Court annulled the contested Regulation to the extent that it applies to City Cycle.

               (4)

               In July 2015 the Council of the European Union (6), European Commission (7) and Maxcom Ltd (8) (a Union manufacturer of bicycle), appealed the General Court's judgment. By its judgment of 26 January 2017 (‘the judgment’), the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’) dismissed the appeals submitted by the Union industry, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union.

               (5)

               In particular, the Court of Justice found, in paragraph 73 of its judgment, that recital (78) of the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged. The Court of Justice also found in paragraphs 75 and 76, that the conclusion as to the existence of transhipment operations in Sri Lanka could not legally be based only on the two findings expressly made by the Council, that is, first, that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and, second, that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate (9).

         3.   Consequences of the judgment

               (6)

               In line with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions need to take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment of 26 January 2017.

               (7)

               In cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding (10). The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. The EU institutions have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court judgment (11).

         B.   PROCEDURE

   1.   Procedure until the judgment

               (8)

               The Commission confirms recitals (1) to (23) of the contested Regulation. They are not affected by the judgment.

         2.   Reopening

               (9)

               Following the judgment, on 11 April 2017 the Commission published a Notice (12) partially reopening the anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation (‘the Notice of re-opening’) and resumed it at the point at which the irregularity occurred. The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment with regard to City Cycle.

               (10)

               The Commission informed City Cycle, the representatives of the exporting country, the Union industry and other interested parties known to be concerned from the original investigation of the partial reopening of the investigation. 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.

               (11)

               All interested parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and/or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings. Nobody requested a hearing either with the Commission services or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings.

         3.   Registration of imports

               (12)

               Following the judgment, the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association and Maxcom Ltd requested that imports of bicycles in so far as it concerns City Cycle are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied on those imports from the date of such registration.

               (13)

               On 11 April 2017, the Commission made imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, in so far as it concerns the Sri Lankan company City Cycle Industries subject to registration (‘Registration Regulation’) (13).

         4.   Product under investigation

               (14)

               The product under investigation is the same as in the contested Regulation that is bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘PRC’), currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70. The Commission confirms recitals (25) to (27) of the contested Regulation.

         C.   ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT

   1.   Preliminary remarks

               (15)

               First, the Court of Justice held that the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged. The two findings expressly made by the Council, that that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate were found by the Court of Justice not to be sufficient to entitle the Council to conclude either that City Cycle was involved in transhipment operations or that transhipment operations existed at national level in Sri Lanka.

               (16)

               Second, it is recognised in paragraphs 29 and 31 of the judgment that the evidence communicated by City Cycle during the investigation did not show that it was a genuine producer or that its assembly operations did not constitute circumvention practice according to the criteria laid down in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Recitals (124) to (127) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed.

               (17)

               Third, it follows from the judgment, in conjunction with the judgment of the General Court, that the Council was entitled to consider City Cycle as a non-cooperating party in the investigation and that there was a certain level of non-cooperation at national level in Sri Lanka. Recitals (35) to (42) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed.

         2.   Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty

               (18)

               The Commission had found, in recitals (93) to (96) of the contested Regulation, undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty. Those findings are confirmed.

         3.   Evidence of dumping

               (19)

               The Commission had found, in recitals (97) and (98) as well as (107) to (110) of the contested Regulation, evidence of dumping. Those findings are confirmed.

         4.   Existence of circumvention practices

               (20)

               The contested Regulation has been annulled because the Council failed to provide, in the contested Regulation, sufficient substantiation as to the existence of circumventing practices for City Cycle Industries. It is recalled that the existence of circumvention practices can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations.

               (21)

               The reopened investigation revealed that there was no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment. Therefore, no further reasoning regarding transhipment could be put forward under recital (78) of the contested Regulation.

               (22)

               However, available evidence shows that circumvention practices via assembly operations took place. The evidence was based on the data submitted by City Cycle itself during the original investigation. The Council had not assessed that data in detail, because it considered that that was not necessary in order to demonstrate, to the required legal standard, existence of circumvention practices. Now that the Court has clarified the applicable legal standard, the Commission considers it appropriate to reassess all the evidence available in the administrative file in the light of the applicable legal standard.

               (23)

               During the anti-circumvention investigation City Cycle came forward and requested exemption from the possible anti-circumvention measures. As described in recitals (37), (38) and (144) of the contested Regulation, City Cycle was unable to prove that it merited an exemption. The company afforded insufficient cooperation and Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied. The lack of reliable information as regards the value and volume of parts of Chinese origin purchased by the company made it impossible to positively establish that City Cycle was a genuine producer not involved in circumvention or that its assembly operations were not a form of circumvention. As explained in recitals (16) and (17) above, these findings were not affected by the judgment.

               (24)

               In any event, however, the data submitted by the company itself demonstrate that:

                           (1)

                           the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product (60/40 test), while

                           (2)

                           the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost (25 % value added test).

               (25)

               According to the criteria of Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation, this means that such assembly operations should be considered to constitute circumvention practice given the fulfilment of the other criteria as described in recitals (18) and (19) above.

               (26)

               Consequently, the existence of circumvention practices via assembly operations should be established at country level in Sri Lanka on the basis of the above evidence available at the company level that tends to show circumvention practices and given the high level of non-cooperation in Sri Lanka.

               (27)

               Consequently, the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation was established in Sri Lanka.

               (28)

               After disclosure, City Cycle contested the competence of the Commission to adopt findings on the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. It argued that the Commission could not reassess the finding on the assembly operation because it had not been challenged in the court proceedings and that the Commission was therefore obliged to abandon the pursuit of measures against City Cycle.

               (29)

               This argument should be rejected. First, it results from the judgments of the Court of Justice cited in recitals (4) and (5) that the condition for imposing anti-circumvention measures relates to the existence of circumventing practices as defined in Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, and not to a specific subset of these practices. Second, City Cycle interprets incorrectly the obligation imposed on the Commission by Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in the present case. As made clear in recital (6) of the Notice of re-opening, it is the lack of sufficient reasoning in the contested Regulation concerning the available evidence on the existence of circumventing practices in Sri Lanka that must be corrected in the current procedure. The Commission is therefore competent for readopting a measure with an improved reasoning making clear that City Cycle is engaged in circumventing practices in Sri Lanka, which is fully in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice. In any event, the contested Regulation has been annulled in its totality. Hence, none of its recitals has become definitive. Rather, the Commission needs to assess afresh all aspects of the file. Where no new developments have taken place in the Court proceedings, the Commission may limit itself to confirming the findings of the initial investigation. For the contested part, in the present case circumvention practices, a fresh assessment has to take place.

               (30)

               After disclosure, City Cycle also contested the competence of the Commission to rely on the evidence that it had submitted in the course of the investigation that lead to the imposition of anti-circumvention measures mentioned in recital (2) and to arrive at a different conclusion.

               (31)

               This argument should also be rejected. The Commission is indeed entitled to assess differently the evidence already provided, to the extent that such a new assessment is in line with Article 13 of the basic Regulation as interpreted by the Union Courts, and that City Cycle had full opportunities to comment on this new assessment. As explained in the following recitals, City Cycle has been fully granted its right to submit comments on the Commission's assessment. However, the comments provided by City Cycle did not alter the Commission's finding that it was engaged in circumventing practices.

               (32)

               After the additional disclosure, City Cycle continued to disagree with the Commission's approach to reassess the evidence available in the administrative file. It claimed that following the court judgment, the Commission was allowed to correct only the findings of transhipment and not on assembly operations.

               (33)

               This claim should be rejected. In the present regulation the Commission is correcting the findings of circumvention practices which, as stated in recital (20), can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations. In the contested Regulation, the Commission has not assessed whether City Cycle was involved in assembly operations as it concluded that it was involved in the transhipment operations. After the clarifications provided by the court as explained in recital (22), the Commission has reassessed whether City Cycle was involved in circumvention practices. The Commission conclusion was as follows: firstly, as stated in recital (21) no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment was identified; secondly, as explained in recitals (23) and (24), City Cycle was conclusively found to be involved in circumvention via assembly operations based on an assessment of its own data provided in the course of the investigation.

               (34)

               After disclosure, City Cycle further commented on the calculation methodology used by the Commission in carrying out the 60/40 and 25 % value added tests pursuant to Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Firstly, City Cycle argued that the Commission based its calculation on insufficient data, i.e. merely on semi-finished products purchased during the reporting period of the anti-circumvention investigation. Secondly, it argued that the Commission disregarded certain data and therefore wrongly rejected the allocation ratio based on sales, as suggested by City Cycle. Finally, City Cycle submitted that certain invoices dated outside the reporting period and/or invoices that were reported without date or with an incorrect format should be disregarded from the calculations. These claims have been reiterated after the additional disclosure without providing any additional elements in this regard.

               (35)

               Concerning the methodology, it is clarified that the 60/40 test was carried out not only based on the data provided on semi-finished products in table F.2 of the exemption form but also on the reported manufacturing costs of the bicycle parts claimed to be manufactured by City Cycle. Furthermore, the 25 % value added test was carried out on the cost of processing from semi-finished goods, meaning the assembly cost for bicycles in table F.4.2 of the exemption form. Moreover, since City Cycle did not provide a split of bicycle parts sourced from the PRC and the ones not sourced from the PRC in table F.4.2 as requested, the Commission took this data from table F.2.

               (36)

               Concerning the comment regarding the use of the allocation method, the Commission notes that the data obtained based on this methodology could not be reconciled with the audited accounts. During the on-spot verification this inconsistency was highlighted to City Cycle. City Cycle did not use any accounting software, and accounting was made on paper and in excel worksheets. The company had no system in place to monitor the origin of the imported parts, and it could only be identified whether specific parts were sourced locally or imported. In addition, the company acknowledged that it did not keep track in its accounts of the origin of the parts purchased. Therefore, in order to report data according to origin as requested in the exemption form, City Cycle used an allocation key based on sales of bicycles. However, the allocation method applied by City Cycle could not be reconciled with the audited accounts and the company itself admitted that the figures provided in this regard were wrong. Therefore, the arguments with regard to the use of the allocation method were rejected and therefore also the data provided based on this methodology as it was found to contradict the audited accounts and the Commission used instead the necessary data provided in other tables of the exemption form.

               (37)

               Finally, regarding the invoices mentioned in recital (34), the Commission found the request reasonable and disregard them for the calculation of 60/40 and 25 % value added tests. It was established that this had no impact on the result, i.e. the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China still constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product, while the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was still lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost.

               (38)

               After the additional disclosure, City Cycle claim that the Commission did not take into account that fact that City Cycle has historically been a producer of bicycles from Sri Lanka's domestic market and is operating under the control of Sir Lanka's customs administration. This claim is rejected as it is irrelevant for the purpose of this assessment as the analysis is carried out pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

               (39)

               Consequently, all the claims related to the methodology used by the Commission in carrying out the 60/40 and 25 % value added tests pursuant to Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation were rejected.

         5.   Exemption request

               (40)

               Due to the company's insufficient cooperation and inability to demonstrate that it did not circumvent the measures on the basis of its own data, the exemption request of City Cycle under Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation could not be considered warranted.

         6.   Comments of interested parties

               (41)

               The Commission received submissions from City Cycle and the Union industry.

               (42)

               City Cycle claimed that the Commission could not change its findings regarding assembly operations as the contested Regulation found that the existence of assembly operations was not established in Sri Lanka and this point was not challenged before the courts. This claim was reiterated after disclosure. For the reasons explained above, this claim should be rejected.

               (43)

               It is noted that the company's own data, communicated by the company itself, and its shortcomings in particular, made it impossible to positively establish that City Cycle was a genuine producer or that its assembly operations did not constitute circumvention practice. As a result, the company could not be exempted from the anti-circumvention duties. The company's own data, however, demonstrated that that the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product, while the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost. In the context of high level of non-cooperation, this evidence could be taken to show the existence of circumvention practices in the country.

               (44)

               City Cycle also claimed that the Commission could not reopen the investigation with a notice with a view to readopting a final Regulation or amending the contested Regulation as Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation provides that the Commission can only initiate an anti-circumvention investigation through a Commission Regulation. Furthermore, it claimed that the fact that the Commission considers that the complete proceeding has not been annulled by the courts does not dispense it from adopting a formal Regulation.

               (45)

               This claim was reiterated after disclosure. In particular, City Cycle claimed that the reopening of the anti-circumvention investigation through a Notice would limit its rights to an effective judicial protection. This argument was rejected, as the Notice is simply a preparatory act and City Cycle can exercise its rights to an effective judicial protection against this regulation.

               (46)

               It should also be noted that the Commission did not initiate a new investigation, but merely re-opened the investigation that led to the adoption of the anti-circumvention measures in order to correct the irregularities identified by the Court of Justice in its judgment in the context of that investigation.

               (47)

               Furthermore, City Cycle claimed that the registration of imports of its bicycles is based on an error of fact and flawed reasoning as the assembly practices of City Cycle were not confirmed in the contested Regulation. Therefore, it claimed that the conditions for adopting the Registration Regulation were not met.

               (48)

               However, as explained in recital (24) above, the reopening of the investigation confirmed that evidence at company level relating to the period of the investigation that led to the extension of the measures in 2013 demonstrated the existence of circumvention practices already. In addition, in light of the specific nature of the anti-circumvention instrument, which is designed to protect the effectiveness of the anti-dumping instrument, the registration of imports is a standard means to enhance such effectiveness. Therefore, City Cycle's claim that the conditions for adopting the Registration Regulation were not met was rejected.

               (49)

               Moreover, City Cycle asked the Commission to repeal the anti-circumvention duties imposed on Sri Lankan imports of bicycles, including those of City Cycle.

               (50)

               In this regard it should be noted that City Cycle did not specify on which legal basis the Commission should repeal the anti-circumvention measures on Sri Lankan imports of bicycles. As stated in recitals (3) and (4), the judgement did not annul the contested Regulation as a whole, but only as concerns City Cycle. Therefore, this request was rejected.

               (51)

               After disclosure, City Cycle claimed that the re-extension of the original measures to City Cycle from the date of registration was unwarranted and that the Commission cannot impose duties beyond the duration of the initial measures, which expires five years from the adoption of the contested Regulation that is on May 28, 2018. This claim was reiterated after the additional disclosure.

               (52)

               Under the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, the sole purpose of a regulation extending an anti-dumping duty is to ensure the effectiveness of that duty and to prevent its circumvention. Consequently, a measure extending a definitive anti-dumping duty is merely ancillary to the initial act establishing that duty which protects the effective application of the definitive measures.

               (53)

               Anti-dumping measures were extended, inter alia, to City Cycle's exports from Sri Lanka to the Union market following an anti-circumvention investigation of the measures imposed on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation as stated in recital (2) of this Regulation. Consequently, the anti-circumvention measures imposed by the contested Regulation will remain in force as long as the original measures on imports of bicycles from the PRC are in force. Therefore, the claim that the Commission cannot impose measures on City Cycle's export from Sri Lanka to the Union beyond 28 May 2018 is rejected as it is based on a misinterpretation of Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

               (54)

               In addition, after the additional disclosure City Cycle claimed that the Commission cannot indefinitely prolong circumvention duties without a fresh re-examination of the exporters' circumvention practices, while the dumping practices of the Chinese exporters are reassessed every five years.

               (55)

               This claim should be rejected as it is based on a misunderstanding of Articles 11 and 13 of the basic Regulation. The Commission reassess the anti-dumping measures in force following a request lodged by the Union industry. In the absence of such a request, the anti-dumping measures in force expire at the end of the five years term. In addition, as explained in recital (53), the anti-circumvention measures remain in force as long as the original measures are in force. However, the anti-circumvention measures in place can also be re-assessed following a request from the companies subject to anti-circumvention measures.

         D.   DISCLOSURE

               (56)

               The parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to re-impose definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

               (57)

               The written arguments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, were taken into account.

         E.   IMPOSITION OF MEASURES

               (58)

               On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to re-extend the original measures to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Sri Lanka whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091) from City Cycle Industries.

               (59)

               In light of the specific nature of the anti-circumvention instrument, which is designed to protect the effectiveness of the anti-dumping instrument, and in view of the fact that the investigation has revealed evidence that points to the existence of the circumventing practices based on the company's own reported data, the Commission considers it appropriate to re-impose measures as from the date of the registration.

               (60)

               This Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   A definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Sri Lanka whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091) from City Cycle Industries (TARIC additional code B131).
   2.   The duty imposed by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, registered in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/678.
   Article 2
   Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/678.
   Article 3
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 9 January 2018.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 of 3 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ L 153, 5.6.2013, p. 1).

      (4)  Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council.

      (5)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015, p. 38.

      (6)  Case C-260/15 P Council v City Cycle Industries.

      (7)  Case C-254/15 P Commission v City Cycle Industries.

      (8)  Case C-248/15 P Maxcom v City Cycle Industries.

      (9)  In its judgment of the same day in Joined Cases C-247/15 P, C-253/15 P and C-259/15 P, the Court of Justice annulled the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13 Chin Haur Indonesia PT v Council of the European (3), and dismissed the action for annulment brought by Chin Haur against Regulation (EU) No 501/2013. In that case, the Court of Justice found, in paragraph 98 of its judgment, that the Council had sufficiently explained its evidence concerning the existence of circumventing practices in Indonesia.

      (10)  Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998] ECR II-3939.

      (11)  Case C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [2000] ECR I-08147.

      (12)  Notice concerning the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union and the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2017 in Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P in relation to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (2017/C 113/05) (OJ C 113, 11.4.2017, p. 4).

      (13)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/678 of 10 April 2017 making imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, in so far as it concerns the Sri Lankan company City Cycle Industries, subject to registration, (OJ L 98, 11.4.2017, p. 7).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/49 of 11 January 2018 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 following a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

text:
               12.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 7/31

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/49
   of 11 January 2018
   amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 following a ‘new exporter’ review pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 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) 2016/1036 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 (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 11(4), 13(4) and 14(5) thereof,
   Whereas:
   A.   MEASURES IN FORCE

               (1)

               On 29 May 2013, by Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 (2), the Council, following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, amended Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 (3) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the existing measures’).

               (2)

               On the same date, the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (4) extended the measures to imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (‘the extended measures’).

               (3)

               On 18 May 2015 the Commission, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 (5), extended the measures to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not.

         B.   CURRENT PROCEDURE

   1.   Request for a review

               (4)

               The Commission received a request for an exemption from the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the PRC extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation.

               (5)

               The request was lodged on 13 September 2016 by Look Design System SA (‘the applicant’), an exporting producer of bicycles in Tunisia (‘the country concerned’).

               (6)

               The applicant alleged that it is not related to any of the exporters or producers in the country concerned which are subject to the extended measures on bicycles.

               (7)

               Also, the applicant alleged that it did not export bicycles to the Union during the reporting period used in the investigation that led to the extended measures, namely the period from 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012 (‘original reporting period’).

               (8)

               In addition, the applicant alleged that it has not circumvented the existing measures.

               (9)

               Finally, the applicant provided evidence that it has exported the product under review to the Union in August 2016.

         2.   Initiation of a new exporter review

               (10)

               Having determined that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 13(4) of the basic Regulation for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting the applicant an exemption from the extended measures, and that the Union industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/777 (6), a review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 with regard to the applicant.

               (11)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/777 repealed the anti-dumping duty on bicycles imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 with regard to imports of the product under review produced and sold for export to the Union by the applicant. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register such imports.

         3.   Product under review

               (12)

               The product under review is bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC code 8712003010 and 8712007091).

         4.   Parties concerned

               (13)

               The Commission officially advised the Union industry, the applicant and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.

               (14)

               The Commission sent an exemption form to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.

               (15)

               The Commission sought to verify all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of the new exporter status and the exemption request of the applicant from the extended measures. A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant in Tunisia.

         5.   Reporting period and investigation period

               (16)

               The reporting period extended from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 and the investigation period covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 March 2017 relevant to assess the remedial effects of the measures.

         C.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

   1.   ‘New exporter’ qualification

               (17)

               The Commission examined whether the three conditions contained in Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation for granting new exporter status have been met.

               (18)

               The investigation confirmed that the company had not exported the product under review during the original reporting period, which satisfies the first condition. The applicant also demonstrated that it did not have any links, direct or indirect, with any of the Tunisian exporting producers subject to the extended measure with regard to the product under review, which satisfies the second condition. Finally, the investigation showed that the applicant had started to export the product under review to the Union only after the original reporting period, thus satisfying the third condition.

               (19)

               Accordingly, the Commission established that the company should be considered a ‘new exporter’ in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation and thus the exemption request should be assessed accordingly.

         2.   Exemption request

               (20)

               The sources of raw materials (bicycle parts) and the cost of production of the applicant were analysed to establish whether it was engaged in assembly operations in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.

               (21)

               The investigation revealed that the bicycles exported to the Union during the reporting period did not include bicycle parts from the PRC. The parts mainly originated from other countries and the raw materials (bicycle parts) from the PRC constituted thus less than 60 % the total value of the parts of the assembled product (60/40 test).

               (22)

               Consequently, as the applicant complied with the 60/40 test, it was not required to assess whether the value added to the parts brought in, during the assembly or completion operation, was greater than 25 % of the manufacturing cost. It was also not required to assess whether the remedial effects of the duty were being undermined in terms of prices and/or quantities and whether there was evidence of dumping as foreseen in Article 13(2)(c) of the basic Regulation.

               (23)

               Moreover, no evidence was found that the applicant purchased bicycles from the PRC, or that it transhipped Chinese produced bicycles into the Union.

               (24)

               The Commission, therefore, concluded that the applicant is a genuine producer of bicycles, not related to any producer of bicycles located in the PRC. Consequently, the Commission decided to exempt the applicant from the extended measures.

         D.   REGISTRATION

               (25)

               In the light of the above findings, the registration of imports imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/777 should cease without any retroactive levying of the anti-dumping duties.

         E.   DISCLOSURE

               (26)

               The parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to grant the exemption from the extended measures to the applicant and to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 accordingly. No comments that could alter the decision to exempt the applicant from the extended measures were received from the interested parties.

               (27)

               This regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   In Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013, the following shall be inserted into the table under producers in Tunisia:

               Country

               Company

               TARIC additional code

               Tunisia

                           Look Design System

                           Route de Tunis Km6 — BP 18, 8020 Soliman, Tunisia

               C206

         2.   The customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports of the product under review originating in Tunisia produced by Look Design System SA without any retroactive levying of the anti-dumping duties.
   3.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 11 January 2018.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 153, 5.6.2013, p. 17).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 of 3 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2).

      (4)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ L 153, 5.6.2013, p. 1).

      (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not (OJ L 122, 19.5.2015, p. 4).

      (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/777 of 4 May 2017 initiating a review of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (extending the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not) for the purposes of determining the possibility of granting an exemption from those measures to one Tunisian exporting producer, repealing the anti-dumping duty with regard to imports from that exporting producer and making imports from that exporting producer subject to registration, OJ L 116, 5.5.2017, p. 20.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/108 of 23 January 2018 on an emergency measure in the form of aid to farmers due to the floods and heavy rainfalls in certain areas of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland

text:
               24.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 19/6

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/108
   of 23 January 2018
   on an emergency measure in the form of aid to farmers due to the floods and heavy rainfalls in certain areas of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 221(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Between August and October 2017, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the southern part of Finland experienced heavy rainfalls which resulted in flooding of a significant part of the Member State's arable land. The cumulated rainfall from August to October 2017 has been much higher than average. This abnormal rainfall over a prolonged period is unprecedented. Moreover, an early onset of winter with snowfall and low temperatures made the sowing conditions exceptionally unfavourable. As a consequence, a significant part of the ongoing and upcoming winter sowings for the 2018/2019 marketing year harvest could not take place.

               (2)

               The resulting future loss of income for farmers with holdings in the affected areas, from both hectares inaccessible for sowing and already sown and lost by the heavy floods, will cause a major and extraordinary damage to affected farmers in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland in the upcoming 2018/2019 harvest marketing year. This constitutes a specific problem within the meaning of Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. This specific problem cannot be addressed by measures taken pursuant to Article 219 or 220 of that Regulation since it is not specifically linked to an existing market disturbance or a currently precise threat thereof nor linked to measures for combating the spread of diseases of animals or a loss of consumer confidence due to public, animal or plant health risks.

               (3)

               As an exceptional measure, financial compensation for eligible hectares in the affected areas should be provided for, in order to compensate future economic losses related to the upcoming 2018/2019 harvest marketing year.

               (4)

               From the Union market stability perspective, it is in the interest of the Union that the measure applies only to those farmers who will lose income as a result of the winter sowing area losses. The aid should be limited in addition to farmers most impacted. A farmer should be considered to be most impacted if the percentage of winter sowing areas losses in one Member State amounts to at least 30 percent of his/her total winter sowing areas in that Member State. Moreover, to avoid any risk of overcompensation, the aid per eligible hectare that cannot be used for winter sowing due to flooding should be limited. For this reason, the decision of the Member States concerned on the amount of the aid per eligible hectare should not exceed the average amount of direct payment per hectare in calendar year 2017 in those Member States. The total amount of the aid and the overall budget allocation should be based on information received from the Member States concerned as regards the number of hectares affected by the floods and the heavy rainfalls.

               (5)

               To avoid any risk of double funding, the relevant loss of eligible hectare should not have already been compensated by any kind of national aid or insurance and the aid should be limited to eligible hectares for which no Union financial contribution for the same loss has been received otherwise.

               (6)

               Member States concerned should be allowed to grant additional support under the conditions and within the time limit set by this Regulation.

               (7)

               Aid can only be granted on the basis of an application lodged in accordance with the methods and time limits set by national law in the Member States concerned.

               (8)

               Provision should be made for the competent authorities to take all necessary measures and carry out all checks required and to inform the Commission accordingly. In particular, those checks should include checks as regards the eligibility and the correctness of the application for aid. The number of eligible hectares should be controlled on the basis of all appropriate means available to the competent authorities, including on-farm checks.

               (9)

               The emergency measure should be limited to a maximum period of 12 months starting from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

               (10)

               For the sake of a sound budgetary management of the measure and of a timely payment to the farmers, only those payments made by the Member States concerned to beneficiaries by 30 September 2018 at the latest should be eligible for Union part-financing. Article 5(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 (2) should not be applicable.

               (11)

               To allow the Union to monitor the efficiency of this emergency measure, the Member States concerned should communicate to the Commission detailed information on its implementation. To allow the Union to perform its financial control, these Member States should communicate to the Commission the clearance of the payments.

               (12)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   Union aid shall be available, within the limits of Articles 2 and 5, to farmers for hectares of land situated in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland which cannot be used for winter sowing or which already sown for the 2018/2019 marketing year harvest have been lost, due to heavy rainfalls and flooding occurred between August and October 2017 in these Member States provided that:

               (a)

               these hectares of land amount to at least 30 % of a farmer's total winter sowings area in the Member State concerned;

               (b)

               the farmers did not benefit, for the same loss, from any kind of national aid, insurance or aid financed by a Union contribution, other than that provided for by this Regulation.

         2.   The number of eligible hectares per farmer shall be established by the Member States concerned in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraph 1.
   Article 2
   1.   Under the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 4, each Member State concerned shall decide on the amount of the aid per eligible hectare.
   2.   The Union expenditure incurred in accordance with Article 1 shall not exceed a total amount of:

               (a)

               EUR 9 120 000 for Lithuania;

               (b)

               EUR 3 460 000 for Latvia;

               (c)

               EUR 1 340 000 for Estonia;

               (d)

               EUR 1 080 000 for Finland.

         3.   Member States concerned may grant additional support for the eligible hectares as referred to in Article 1(2) of up to a maximum of 100 % of the amount decided in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.
   Member States concerned shall pay the additional support by 30 September 2018 at the latest.
   4.   The sum of aid referred to in Article 1 and, if applicable, additional support referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article shall not exceed, for each Member State, the amount of direct payment as calculated by dividing the national envelope set for calendar year 2017 for that Member State in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) by the total number of eligible hectares declared in calendar year 2017 in the Member State concerned in accordance with point (a) of Article 72(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4).
   Article 3
   Aid referred to in Article 1 shall be paid on the basis of an application lodged by farmers with eligible hectares in accordance with the methods and time limits set by national law in the Member State concerned.
   Article 4
   Member States concerned shall take all necessary measures, including exhaustive administrative and on-the-spot checks in accordance with Articles 58 and 59 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 to ensure compliance with the conditions laid down in this Regulation. In particular, prior to granting the aid Member States shall carry out:

               (a)

               administrative checks on all aid applications, including:

                           (i)

                           the eligibility of the applicant;

                           (ii)

                           the number of eligible hectares in accordance with Article 1(2) on the basis of on-farm checks, historical records and the Integrated Administration and Control System in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 (5);

                           (iii)

                           verifying that funding has not been received by any eligible applicant from any other sources as referred to in Article 1(1)(b) in respect of the same hectares;

               (b)

               on-the-spot checks at the premises of the applicants.

         The on-the-spot checks shall cover at least 5 % of the total aid claimed.
   Article 5
   1.   Expenditure in relation to payments under this Regulation shall only be eligible for Union financing if those payments have been made to the beneficiaries by 30 September 2018 at the latest.
   2.   Article 5(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 shall not apply.
   Article 6
   1.   Member States concerned shall notify to the Commission the measures to be taken in accordance with Article 4, not later than 60 days after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
   2.   No later than 15 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, Member States concerned shall send to the Commission a detailed report on the implementation of this Regulation, including details as regards the execution of the measures taken and checks carried out in accordance with Article 4.
   3.   Member States concerned shall communicate to the Commission the clearance of payments.
   Article 7
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh 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 January 2018.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro (OJ L 255, 28.8.2014, p. 18).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 608).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549).

      (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ L 227, 31.7.2014, p. 69).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/483 of 22 March 2018 on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 18th partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080

text:
               23.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 81/9

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/483
   of 22 March 2018
   on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 18th partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),
   Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.

               (2)

               In the light of the tenders received for the 18th partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should be fixed.

               (3)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   For the 18th partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 20 March 2018, the minimum selling price shall be 105,00 EUR/100 kg.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 22 March 2018.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Jerzy PLEWA

            Director-General

            Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

      (2)  OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/562 of 9 April 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 opening annual Union tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat

text:
                  12.4.2018

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 94/4

            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/562
      of 9 April 2018
      amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 opening annual Union tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat
      THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
      Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
      Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular points (a) and (b) of Article 187 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 (2) provides for the opening of annual Union import tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat, including those originating in Iceland.

                  (2)

                  Article 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 provides that the tariff quotas opened by that Regulation are to be managed in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (3). Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 was replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (4) and was repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/481 (5) with effect from 1 May 2016. Therefore, references to Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 should be updated.

                  (3)

                  Furthermore, Article 5(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 provides for a proof of origin, in the case of tariff quotas other than those that are part of a preferential tariff agreement, in the form of a certificate of origin in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93. It appears that a certificate of origin is no longer necessary since, in accordance with Article 61 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), customs authorities may require the declarant to prove the origin of the goods by means other than a formal certificate of origin. However, the certificate of origin issued in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 contained also information which is still necessary to differentiate the products for the purpose of calculating the carcass weight equivalent, as provided for in Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011. Therefore, a new document containing that information should be required.

                  (4)

                  The European Union and Iceland signed an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters (hereafter ‘the Agreement’) concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products on 23 March 2017. The signature of the Agreement on behalf of the Union was authorised by Council Decision (EU) 2016/2087 (7) and its conclusion by Council Decision (EU) 2017/1913 (8).

                  (5)

                  In accordance with Annex V to the Agreement, the Union is to add a total quantity of 1 200 tonnes to the current duty-free quota for Iceland for sheepmeat and goatmeat, falling within tariff codes 0204 and 0210, and to open a new annual Union duty-free quota for processed sheepmeat falling within code 1602 90 of 300 tonnes. The additional quantity of 1 200 tonnes and the new quantity of 300 tonnes are to be reached as specified in the table set out in Annex V to the Agreement.

                  (6)

                  The quantities of the products to be imported under the tariff quotas opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 are expressed in carcass-weight equivalent calculated by means of the coefficients set out in Article 3 of that Regulation. A coefficient factor for the conversion into carcass weight equivalent should be established for the new quota for processed sheep meat.

                  (7)

                  It is therefore necessary to amend Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 accordingly.

                  (8)

                  The Agreement provides for entry into force on 1 May 2018. For 2018 the additional quantities of sheepmeat and goatmeat and the quantities in the new quota for processed sheep meat, to be made available pursuant to the Agreement, should be calculated on a prorata basis, taking into account its date of entry into force.

                  (9)

                  To facilitate the smooth implementation of the new provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011, all the measures laid down in this Regulation should apply at the same date, which should be the date of entry into force of the Agreement.

                  (10)

                  The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
      Article 1
      Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 is amended as follows:

                  (1)

                  In Article 3(2) the following point (e) is added:

                              ‘(e)

                              for processed sheep meat: 1,00.’

                  (2)

                  Article 4 is replaced by the following:
                  ‘Article 4
                  By way of derogation from Title II(A) and (B) of Regulation (EC) No 1439/95, the tariff quotas set out in this Regulation shall be managed in accordance with Articles 49 to 54 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (*1). No import licences shall be required.

                     (*1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558).’"

                  (3)

                  The following Article 4a is inserted:
                  ‘Article 4a
                  1.   The origin of products subject to a tariff quota other than those resulting from preferential tariff agreements shall be determined in accordance with the provisions in force in the Union.
                  2.   The origin of products subject to a tariff quota which is part of a preferential tariff agreement shall be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in that agreement.’

                  (4)

                  Article 5 is replaced by the following:
                  ‘Article 5
                  1.   In order to benefit from the tariff quotas set out in the Annex, a valid proof of origin shall be presented to the Union customs authorities together with a customs declaration for release for free circulation for the products concerned.
                  2.   In the case of a tariff quota which is part of a preferential tariff agreement, the proof of origin referred to in paragraph 1 shall be the proof of origin laid down in that agreement.
                  In the case of tariff quotas other than those resulting from preferential tariff agreements, Article 61 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2) shall apply.
                  Where tariff quotas originating in the same third country and falling under the first and the second subparagraphs are merged, the proof of origin laid down in the relevant agreement shall be presented to the Union customs authorities together with the customs declaration for release for free circulation for the products concerned.
                  3.   In the case of tariff quotas other than those resulting from preferential tariff agreements, the customs declaration for release for free circulation for the products concerned shall be submitted to the Union customs authorities together with a document issued by the competent authority or agency in the third country of origin. This document is setting out the following:

                              (a)

                              the name of the consigner;

                              (b)

                              the type of product and its CN code;

                              (c)

                              the number of packages, their nature and the marks and numbers they bear;

                              (d)

                              the order number or order numbers of the tariff quota concerned;

                              (e)

                              the total net weight broken down per coefficient category as provided for in Article 3(2) of this Regulation.

                     (*2)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).’"

                  (5)

                  The Annex is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

            Article 2
      This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
      It shall apply from 1 May 2018.

         This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
         Done at Brussels, 9 April 2018.

               For the Commission

            Phil HOGAN

               Member of the Commission

         (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

         (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1354/2011 of 20 December 2011 opening annual Union tariff quotas for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat (OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, p. 36).

         (3)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

         (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558).

         (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/481 of 1 April 2016 repealing Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, (OJ L 87, 2.4.2016, p. 24).

         (6)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).

         (7)  Council Decision (EU) 2016/2087 of 14 November 2016 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products (OJ L 324, 30.11.2016, p. 1).

         (8)  Council Decision (EU) 2017/1913 of 9 October 2017 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and Iceland concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products (OJ L 274, 24.10.2017, p. 57).

         ANNEX
         ‘
               ANNEX

                  SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT (in tonnes (t) of carcass weight equivalent) UNION TARIFF QUOTAS

                           CN codes

                           ‘Ad valorem’ duty
                           %

                           Specific duty
                           EUR/100 Kg

                           Order number under ‘first-come first-served’

                           Origin

                           Annual volume in tonnes of carcass weight equivalent

                           Live animals
                           (Coefficient = 0,47)

                           Boneless lamb (1)

                           (Coefficient = 1,67)

                           Boneless mutton/sheep (2)

                           (Coefficient = 1,81)

                           Bone-in and carcasses
                           (Coefficient = 1,00)

                           Processed sheep meat
                           (Coefficient = 1,00)

                           0204

                           Zero

                           Zero

                           —

                           09.2101

                           09.2102

                           09.2011

                           —

                           Argentina

                           23 000

                           —

                           09.2105

                           09.2106

                           09.2012

                           —

                           Australia

                           19 186

                           —

                           09.2109

                           09.2110

                           09.2013

                           —

                           New Zealand

                           228 254

                           —

                           09.2111

                           09.2112

                           09.2014

                           —

                           Uruguay

                           5 800

                           —

                           09.2115

                           09.2116

                           09.1922

                           —

                           Chile (3)

                           8 000

                           —

                           09.2121

                           09.2122

                           09.0781

                           —

                           Norway

                           300

                           —

                           09.2125

                           09.2126

                           09.0693

                           —

                           Greenland

                           100

                           —

                           09.2129

                           09.2130

                           09.0690

                           —

                           Faeroes

                           20

                           —

                           09.2131

                           09.2132

                           09.0227

                           —

                           Turkey

                           200

                           —

                           09.2171

                           09.2175

                           09.2015

                           —

                           Others (4)

                           200

                           —

                           09.2178

                           09.2179

                           09.2016

                           —

                              Erga omnes
                               (5)

                           200

                           0204 ,
                           0210 99 21 ,
                           0210 99 29 ,
                           ex 0210 99 85

                           Zero

                           Zero

                           —

                           09.2119

                           09.2120

                           09.0790

                           —

                           Iceland

                           Year 2018

                           2 117

                           Year 2019

                           2 783

                           From 2020 onwards

                           3 050

                           0104 10 30
                           0104 10 80
                           0104 20 90

                           10 %

                           Zero

                           09.2181

                           —

                           —

                           09.2019

                           —

                              Erga omnes
                               (5)

                           92

                           ex 1602 90 10 ,
                           1602 90 91

                           Zero

                           Zero

                           —

                           —

                           —

                           —

                           09.2118

                           Iceland

                           From 1 May 2018

                           67

                           Year 2019

                           233

                           From 2020 onwards

                           300

                     ’

            (1)  And goatmeat of kid.

            (2)  And goatmeat other than kid.

            (3)  Tariff quota for Chile increases by 200 t per annum.

            (4)  ‘Others’ shall refer to all WTO members, excluding Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, Chile, Greenland and Iceland.

            (5)  ‘Erga omnes’ shall refer to all origins including the countries mentioned in the current table.


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/999 of 16 July 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1686 imposing additional restrictive measures directed against ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and natural and legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them

text:
               16.7.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               LI 178/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/999
   of 16 July 2018
   implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1686 imposing additional restrictive measures directed against ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and natural and legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1686 of 20 September 2016 imposing additional restrictive measures directed against ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and natural and legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 20 September 2016, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2016/1686.

               (2)

               In view of the continued threat posed by ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda and natural and legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them, one person should be added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2016/1686.

               (3)

               Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2016/1686 should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2016/1686 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the date 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, 16 July 2018.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  OJ L 255, 21.9.2016, p. 1.

      ANNEX
      The following person is added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2016/1686:

                     ‘2.

                     Rabah TAHARI (a.k.a. Abu Musab); date of birth: 28 August 1971; place of birth: Oran (Algeria); Nationality: Algerian.’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1064 of 25 July 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin

text:
                  30.7.2018

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 192/29

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1064
         of 25 July 2018
         amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 183(b) thereof,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 510/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 1216/2009 and (EC) No 614/2009 (2), and in particular Article 5(6)(a) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

                     (2)

                     Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin.

                     (3)

                     Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 should therefore be amended accordingly.

                     (4)

                     Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

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

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 25 July 2018.

                  For the Commission,

                  On behalf of the President,

               Jerzy PLEWA

                  Director-General

                  Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

            (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

            (2)  OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 1.

            (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC (OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 47).

            ANNEX
            ‘

                     ANNEX I

                                 CN code

                                 Description

                                 Representative price
                                 (EUR/100 kg)

                                 Security under Article 3
                                 (EUR/100 kg)

                                 Origin (1)

                                 0207 12 10

                                 Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, not cut in pieces, presented as “70 % chickens”, frozen

                                 108,6

                                 0

                                 AR

                                 0207 12 90

                                 Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, not cut in pieces, presented as “65 % chickens”, frozen

                                 139,4

                                 0

                                 AR

                                 225,0

                                 0

                                 BR

                                 0207 14 10

                                 Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, boneless cuts, frozen

                                 263,5

                                 11

                                 AR

                                 249,1

                                 15

                                 BR

                                 334,8

                                 0

                                 CL

                                 255,3

                                 13

                                 TH

                                 0207 27 10

                                 Turkeys, boneless cuts, frozen

                                 305,0

                                 0

                                 BR

                                 321,9

                                 0

                                 CL

                                 0408 91 80

                                 Eggs, not in shell, dried

                                 242,1

                                 1

                                 AR

                                 1602 32 11

                                 Preparations of fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, uncooked

                                 237,5

                                 15

                                 BR

               ’

               (1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 of 27 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as regards the update of the nomenclature of countries and territories (OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1066 of 27 July 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq

text:
                  30.7.2018

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 192/34

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1066
         of 27 July 2018
         amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (1), and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 lists public bodies, corporations and agencies and natural and legal persons, bodies and entities of the previous government of Iraq covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources that were located outside Iraq on the date of 22 May 2003 under that Regulation.

                     (2)

                     On 23 July 2018, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove four entries from the list of persons or entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.

                     (3)

                     Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

            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, 27 July 2018.

                  For the Commission,

                  On behalf of the President,

                  Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments

            (1)  OJ L 169, 8.7.2003, p. 6.

            ANNEX
            In Annex III, the following entries are deleted:

                        (a)

                                       ‘71.

                                       IRAQI TOBACCO STATE ESTABLISHMENT (alias IRAQI TOBACCO STATE ENTERPRISE). Addresses: (a) Karrada Al Sharkiya, Nadhimiya, P.O. Box 10026, Baghdad, Iraq; (b) P.O. Box 10026, Jumhuriya Street, Khallani Square, Baghdad, Iraq.’;

                        (b)

                                       ‘87.

                                       MOSUL SUGAR STATE COMPANY (alias MOSUL SUGAR STATE ENTERPRISE). Address: P.O. Box 42, Gizlany Street, Mosul, Iraq.’;

                        (c)

                                       ‘132.

                                       STATE ENTERPRISE FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS. Address: P.O. Box 11183, Baghdad, Iraq.’;

                        (d)

                                       ‘153.

                                       STATE ENTERPRISE FOR VEGETABLE OILS. Address: P.O. Box 2379, Muaskar Al Rashid Road, Baghdad, Iraq.’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2002 of 8 November 2017 approving L(+) lactic acid as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2, 3 and 4 (Text with EEA relevance. )

text:
               9.11.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 290/4

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/2002
   of 8 November 2017
   approving L(+) lactic acid as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2, 3 and 4
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 89(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 (2) establishes a list of existing active substances to be evaluated for their possible approval for use in biocidal products. That list includes L(+) lactic acid.

               (2)

               L(+) lactic acid has been evaluated for use in products of product-type 2, disinfectants and algaecides not intended for direct application to humans or animals, product-type 3, veterinary hygiene, and product type 4, food and feed area, as described in Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

               (3)

               Germany was designated as evaluating competent authority and submitted the assessment reports together with its recommendations on 3 May 2016.

               (4)

               In accordance with Article 7(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014, the opinions of the European Chemicals Agency were formulated on 27 April 2017 by the Biocidal Products Committee, having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

               (5)

               According to those opinions, biocidal products of product-types 2, 3 and 4 and containing L(+) lactic acid may be expected to satisfy the criteria of Article 19(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, provided that certain specifications and conditions concerning their use are complied with.

               (6)

               It is therefore appropriate to approve L(+) lactic acid for use in biocidal products of product-types 2, 3 and 4, subject to compliance with certain specifications and conditions.

               (7)

               A reasonable period should be allowed to elapse before an active substance is approved in order to permit interested parties to take the preparatory measures necessary to meet the new requirements.

               (8)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   L(+) lactic acid is approved as an active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2, 3 and 4, subject to the specifications and conditions set out in the Annex.
   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, 8 November 2017.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 of 4 August 2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 294, 10.10.2014, p. 1).

      ANNEX

                  Common Name

                  IUPAC Name
                  Identification Numbers

                  Minimum degree of purity of the active substance (1)

                  Date of approval

                  Expiry date of approval

                  Product type

                  Specific conditions

                  L(+) lactic acid

                  IUPAC Name:
                  (S)-2-Hydroxypropanoic acid
                  EC No: 201-196-2
                  CAS No: 79-33-4

                  ≥ 955 g/kg (dry weight)

                  1 May 2019

                  30 April 2029

                  2

                  The authorisations of biocidal products are subject to the following condition:
                  The product assessment shall pay particular attention to the exposures, the risks and the efficacy linked to any use covered by an application for authorisation, but not addressed in the Union-level risk assessment of the active substance.

                  3

                  The authorisations of biocidal products are subject to the following conditions:

                              1.

                              The product assessment shall pay particular attention to the exposures, the risks and the efficacy linked to any use covered by an application for authorisation, but not addressed in the Union-level risk assessment of the active substance.

                              2.

                              In view of the risks identified for the uses assessed, the product assessment shall pay particular attention to groundwater for products used in animal housings leading to exposure of the environment via the application of manure on agricultural land.

                  4

                  The authorisations of biocidal products are subject to the following conditions:

                              1.

                              The product assessment shall pay particular attention to the exposures, the risks and the efficacy linked to any use covered by an application for authorisation, but not addressed in the Union-level risk assessment of the active substance.

                              2.

                              In view of the risks identified for the uses assessed, the product assessment shall pay particular attention to professional users.

         (1)  The purity indicated in this column was the minimum degree of purity of the active substance evaluated. The active substance in the product placed on the market can be of equal or different purity if it has been proven to be technically equivalent to the evaluated active substance.