title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 366/2012 of 27 April 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers and cherries, other than sour cherries

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 116/10

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 366/2012
   of 27 April 2012
   amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 as regards the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers and cherries, other than sour cherries
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 143(b) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2) provides for the surveillance of the imports of the products listed in Annex XVIII thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).

               (2)

               For the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2009, 2010 and 2011, the trigger levels for additional duties should be adjusted from 1 May 2012 for cucumbers and from 21 May 2012 for cherries other than sour cherries.

               (3)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 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.

               (5)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex XVIII to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 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, 27 April 2012.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 22.

      ANNEX

            ‘ANNEX XVIII
            ADDITIONAL IMPORT DUTIES: TITLE IV, CHAPTER I, SECTION 2
            Without prejudice to the rules governing the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, the description of the products is deemed to be indicative only. The scope of the additional duties for the purposes of this Annex is determined by the scope of the CN codes as they stand at the time of the adoption of this Regulation.

                        Order number

                        CN code

                        Description

                        Trigger period

                        Trigger level
                        (tonnes)

                        78.0015

                        0702 00 00

                        Tomatoes

                        1 October to 31 May

                        481 762

                        78.0020

                        1 June to 30 September

                        44 251

                        78.0065

                        0707 00 05

                        Cucumbers

                        1 May to 31 October

                        13 402

                        78.0075

                        1 November to 30 April

                        18 306

                        78.0085

                        0709 91 00

                        Artichokes

                        1 November to 30 June

                        11 620

                        78.0100

                        0709 93 10

                        Courgettes

                        1 January to 31 December

                        54 760

                        78.0110

                        0805 10 20

                        Oranges

                        1 December to 31 May

                        292 760

                        78.0120

                        0805 20 10

                        Clementines

                        1 November to end of February

                        85 392

                        78.0130

                        0805 20 30
                        0805 20 50
                        0805 20 70
                        0805 20 90

                        Mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas); wilkings and similar citrus hybrids

                        1 November to end of February

                        99 128

                        78.0155

                        0805 50 10

                        Lemons

                        1 June to 31 December

                        340 920

                        78.0160

                        1 January to 31 May

                        90 108

                        78.0170

                        0806 10 10

                        Table grapes

                        21 July to 20 November

                        80 588

                        78.0175

                        0808 10 80

                        Apples

                        1 January to 31 August

                        701 247

                        78.0180

                        1 September to 31 December

                        64 981

                        78.0220

                        0808 30 90

                        Pears

                        1 January to 30 April

                        230 148

                        78.0235

                        1 July to 31 December

                        35 573

                        78.0250

                        0809 10 00

                        Apricots

                        1 June to 31 July

                        5 794

                        78.0265

                        0809 29 00

                        Cherries, other than sour cherries

                        21 May to 10 August

                        59 061

                        78.0270

                        0809 30

                        Peaches, including nectarines

                        11 June to 30 September

                        5 613

                        78.0280

                        0809 40 05

                        Plums

                        11 June to 30 September

                        10 293’


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1064/2010 of 17 November 2010 terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 304/2

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1064/2010
   of 17 November 2010
   terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic anti-dumping Regulation), and in particular Article 11(3) and (5) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (the basic anti-subsidy Regulation), and in particular Articles 19 and 22(1), first sentence thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   1.   MEASURES IN FORCE

   1.1.   Previous investigations and existing countervailing measures

               (1)

               In December 1999, by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (3), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (the product concerned), originating in India. The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the ‘original anti-subsidy investigation’. The measures took the form of an ad valorem countervailing duty, ranging between 3,8 % and 19,1 %, imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports from all other companies. The investigation period of the original anti-subsidy investigation was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998.

               (2)

               In March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (4), the Council, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, maintained the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of PET film originating in India. The review investigation period was 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004.

               (3)

               In August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006 (5), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, Garware Polyester Limited (Garware), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Garware by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.

               (4)

               In September 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1124/2007 (6), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of another Indian PET film producer, Jindal Poly Films Limited, formerly known as Jindal Polyester Ltd (Jindal), amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.

               (5)

               In January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (7), the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.

               (6)

               In June 2010, by Regulation (EU) No 579/2010 (8), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of Jindal, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on Jindal by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.

         1.2.   Previous investigations and existing anti-dumping measures

               (7)

               In August 2001, by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 (9), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India. The investigation which led to the adoption of that Regulation is hereinafter referred to as the ‘original anti-dumping investigation’. The measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging between 0 % and 62,6 % imposed on imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate of 53,3 % on imports from all other companies.

               (8)

               In March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 (10), the Council amended the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001. The anti-dumping duty imposed ranged between 0 % and 18 %, taking into account the findings of the expiry review of the definitive countervailing duties carried out pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 367/2006.

               (9)

               In August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006, the Council, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, Garware, amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on Garware by Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001.

               (10)

               In September 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1424/2006 (11), the Council, following a new exporting producer request, amended Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 in respect of SRF Limited. The amended Regulation established a dumping margin of 15,5 % and a anti-dumping duty rate of 3,5 % for the company concerned taking into account the company’s export subsidy margin as ascertained in the anti-subsidy investigation which led to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. Since the company did not have an individual countervailing duty, the rate established for all other companies was applied.

               (11)

               In November 2007, by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (12), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET film originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. By the same Regulation, a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, limited to one Indian exporting producer, was terminated.

               (12)

               In January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009, the Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007.

         2.   PROCEDURE

   2.1.   Grounds for the review

               (13)

               The request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation was lodged by Polyplex Corporation Limited, an exporting producer from India (the applicant). The request was limited to the examination of the product scope as regards the clarification of whether certain product types fall within the scope of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of PET film.

               (14)

               The applicant requested the exclusion of ‘siliconised polyester release liner’ (SPRL) in so far as it falls within the definition of the product concerned, from the scope of the current anti-dumping and countervailing measures on imports of PET film originating in India. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of SPRL significantly differ from those of the product concerned.

         2.2.   Initiation

               (15)

               Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission announced by a notice published on 9 September 2009 in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (13) (the Notice of Initiation) the initiation of a partial interim review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation limited to the examination of the product scope. In particular, the review had to determine whether or not SPRL is part of the product concerned as defined in the original investigation.

         2.3.   Review investigation

               (16)

               The Commission officially informed the authorities of the Republic of India (the country concerned) and all other parties known to be concerned, i.e. known exporting producers in the country concerned, users and importers in the Union and producers in the Union, of the initiation of the partial interim review investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of Initiation.

               (17)

               All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

               (18)

               The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned, and all other parties which made themselves known within the the time limit set out in the Notice of Initiation.

               (19)

               Questionnaire replies were received from the applicant, two other Indian exporting producers, four Union producers and two Union importers.

               (20)

               The Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the purpose of the assessment as to whether there was a need for amendment of the scope of the existing anti-dumping and countervailing measures and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies:

                           —

                           Garware Polyester Limited, Mumbai, India,

                           —

                           Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Wiesbaden, Germany,

                           —

                           Polyplex Corporation Limited, Noida, India.

               (21)

               The investigation covered the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).

         3.   PRODUCT CONCERNED

               (22)

               The product concerned is the same product as the one defined by Regulations (EC) No 367/2006 and (EC) No 1292/2007, namely polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India, currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90.

         4.   FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW INVESTIGATION

   4.1.   Background

               (23)

               PET film is a non-self-adhesive film of polyethylene terephthalate. PET film is always produced from PET polymer and consists of a base film which may be subject to further treatment either during or after the production process. Such treatment of the base film may typically include corona treatment, metallisation or chemical coating.

               (24)

               PET film has specific physical, chemical and technical characteristics which distinguishes it from other films. Some of the characteristics of PET film are, for example, its high tensile strength, the very good electrical properties, low moisture absorption and humidity resistance, low shrinkage and good barrier properties. Therefore, while these specific characteristics determine various types of PET film, these types retain the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of base PET film. PET film has five broad end-uses which fall within five market segments, i.e. magnetic media, packaging, electrical, imaging and industrial applications.

         4.2.   Methodology

               (25)

               In order to assess whether SPRL and other types of PET film should be considered as one single product or two different products, it was examined whether SPRL and other types of PET film shared the same basic physical and chemical characteristics. Moreover, the production process, differences in end-uses and interchangeability as well as differences in costs and prices were examined.

         4.3.   Main arguments of the parties

               (26)

               The applicant claimed that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of SPRL differ from those of the product concerned. In particular, the relatively low release force of SPRL and its low surface tension make the film slippery and consequently its surface becomes inactive to inks, coatings, adhesives and metallisation. According to the applicant, due to the migration of uncured silicone within the SPRL, even the reverse side of a single side coated SPRL exhibits marked differences in physical and technical properties compared to other types of PET film. These features allegedly impede the usage of SPRL in base PET film industry segments identified in the original investigation, i.e. packaging, magnetic media, electrical, imaging and industrial applications. On the other hand, the functionally active surface of other types of PET film makes it impossible to use them as release liners, since they would irretrievably stick to adhesive surfaces. Consequently, the applicant argued that SPRL is not interchangeable in its applications with any other kind of PET film.

               (27)

               The Union industry claimed that the applicant’s arguments relied on two successive sets of artificially limited comparisons. First, the applicant compared SPRL against a narrow set of PET films, i.e. base PET film, and not against other types of coated PET film that are more comparable with SPRL. Second, this allegedly limited comparison was carried out only with regard to a highly selective and limited set of physical and chemical properties. The Union industry claimed that when comparing SPRL with a wide range of other types of PET film, and over a representative number of chemical and physical properties, it is clear that SPRL is the same product as other types of PET film and should remain within the scope of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures. According to the Union industry, SPRL is effectively PET film subsequently coated with a silicone layer. It is not conceptually different from other types of coated film, such as metallised film or film with an anti-static coating or film with barrier coating, and as such is clearly product concerned. In support for its claims, the Union industry provided a comparison of a number of different physical and chemical properties over a number of different types of PET film.

         4.4.   Findings

   4.4.1.   Physical and chemical characteristics

               (28)

               The investigation showed that the two characteristics mentioned in recital 27, i.e. the relatively low release force of SPRL and its low surface tension, are additional features compared to the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of PET film as defined in the original anti-dumping investigation (14) and mentioned in recital 24. In this respect, it should be noted that the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics are the same for SPRL as for any other types of PET film.

               (29)

               As regards the two characteristics specific to SPRL, i.e. low release force and low surface tension, it was found that these are not the characteristics of PET film as such, but rather the characteristics of its siliconised surface or effectively the characteristics of silicone. Coating with silicone, as well as coating with any other substances, changes some features of the surface of the film but does not change the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristic of the base PET film itself, which under the coating layer remains the same.

               (30)

               While it is true that covering PET film with silicone results in a low release force of the surface and also in a low surface tension, a similar argument could be made for other types of coating, i.e. when covered with other types of coating the surface of PET film obtains other special characteristics. In some cases coating may result in characteristics which make PET film suitable only for very specific applications. Coating with silicone is by no means unique in this respect. Other special products with other types of coating include for example sealable films, anti-fog coated films, peeling/sealing films and co-polyester coated films. All these types, however, share the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics and are part of the product concerned as defined in the original investigation.

               (31)

               On this basis, it is considered that there are no significant differences in terms of basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics between SPRL and other types of PET film which would justify the exclusion of SPRL from the product scope.

         4.4.2.   Comparison of other criteria

               (32)

               For the sake of completeness, other claims raised by the applicant in its review request, allegedly showing that SPRL and PET film are different products, were also examined.

         4.4.2.1.   Production process

               (33)

               The applicant claimed that SPRL requires separate manufacturing facilities compared to other types of PET film produced.

               (34)

               As mentioned in recital 23, PET film is always produced from PET polymer and consists of a base film which may be subject to further treatment either during or after the production process. Such treatment of the base film may typically include corona treatment, metallisation or chemical coating.

               (35)

               SPRL is PET film coated with a silicone layer. The investigation showed that there are two different technologies of manufacturing SPRL. The Union producer investigated uses the in-line coating technology of manufacturing. In this process the base PET film is coated during the production process before stretching. The coating module is just an additional, removable part of the production line. In contrast, the Indian producers investigated use the off-line coating technology. In this process the PET film is first produced, after which it is coated on a separate production line.

               (36)

               It was found that the choice between in-line or off-line coating technology is purely economic, the cost of investment in movable modules for the in-line coating being approximately 10 times higher than the investment in an off-line coating line. The advantage of in-line coating is a much higher speed of the line enabling significant volumes of production. In-line coating also leads to per-unit savings on the silicone costs as the layer of silicone surface is thinner than in the case of off-line coating.

               (37)

               It should be noted that the existence of two different coating methodologies does not alter the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics of SPRL, which remain the same as compared to those of other types of PET film. Indeed different production processes are not per se relevant to determine whether a product type is a distinct product provided that the product types obtained from these processes are alike in terms of the basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics.

         4.4.2.2.   Differences in end-uses and interchangeability

               (38)

               The applicant also claimed that there is no interchangeability in the applications between SPRL and other types of PET film. This claim was confirmed by the investigation. However, as concluded in the original investigation, this is also true for other types of PET film with a special treatment.

               (39)

               The investigation confirmed that the purpose of coating, or of any other special treatment of PET film, is to make it suitable for certain specific applications. The substance chosen as the coating layer in each case has certain characteristics serving the relevant purpose. Silicone, for example, gives a low release force. The coating substance may have other special features (in the case of silicone, it is low surface tension) which makes it impossible to use the coated product for other applications. There are a number of other types of PET film, coated with other substances or otherwise treated, which for the above reasons have specific and limited applications.

               (40)

               Therefore, whilst SPRL is specifically used for certain applications, its basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics are the same as those of the other types of PET film. As a consequence, interchangeability and end-use are not relevant to determine whether SPRL would constitute a different product.

         4.4.2.3.   Differences in costs and prices

               (41)

               Finally, the applicant claimed that the process of siliconising of base PET film involves additional costs.

               (42)

               It was indeed found that the additional cost of silicone coating can amount to up to 10 % of the costs of manufacturing, depending on the choice of coating methodology. As described in recitals 35 and 36, the applicant opted for a more costly methodology in terms of per-unit silicone costs. It should be stressed, however, that this is an additional cost in comparison to the cost of producing the base PET film. Coating the base PET film with other substances, as well as the metallisation process, also increase the costs of manufacturing and thereby prices.

               (43)

               In this respect, however, it is considered that the additional cost of silicone coating does not constitute in itself a decisive criterion when determining whether SPRL form a distinct product. Indeed differences in costs and prices do not per se justify the conclusion that a certain product type should be considered as a different product as long as this type shares the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics as the product concerned.

         5.   CONCLUSIONS ON THE PRODUCT SCOPE

               (44)

               The findings of the investigation confirmed that the process of siliconising the PET film results in a different surface of the end-product compared to the base PET film. However, this process does not change the basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics of the product. Indeed, the investigation confirmed that there are a number of specially treated types of PET film on the market which fall under the definition of the product concerned as established in the original investigation. In addition, the other criteria analysed, i.e. the production process, interchangeability/end-use and differences in costs and prices, did not alter this conclusion.

               (45)

               All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the above conclusions were reached. Parties were granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

               (46)

               The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were duly considered, but did not change the conclusion not to amend the product scope of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures on imports of PET film in force,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The partial interim review of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain PET film originating in India is hereby terminated without amending the anti-dumping and countervailing measures in force.
   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, 17 November 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         D. REYNDERS

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.

      (3)  OJ L 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 15.

      (5)  OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ L 255, 29.9.2007, p. 1.

      (7)  OJ L 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1.

      (8)  OJ L 168, 2.7.2010, p. 1.

      (9)  OJ L 277, 23.8.2001, p. 1.

      (10)  OJ L 68, 8.3.2006, p. 6.

      (11)  OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 1.

      (12)  OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1.

      (13)  OJ C 215, 9.9.2009, p. 19.

      (14)  Recital 10 of Regulation (EC) No 367/2001.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/909 of 12 June 2015 on the modalities for the calculation of the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               13.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 148/17

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/909
   of 12 June 2015
   on the modalities for the calculation of the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (1), and in particular Article 31(3) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               A need for accelerated renewal or maintenance resulting from a more intense use of the network may be taken into account for the purposes of calculation of direct costs, provided it is ensured that only costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service are included.

               (2)

               Infrastructure managers are under the obligation to operate networks whilst they face restrictions hampering efficient management and cost control. Consequently, Member States should have the opportunity to set direct costs at the level of costs of efficient service provision.

               (3)

               Setting the track access charge at the costs directly incurred by the train service should not set out to cause that the infrastructure manager to experience either a net financial loss or a net financial gain as a result of operation of the train service.

               (4)

               Historical asset values should be based on the amounts paid for acquisition of assets by the infrastructure manager provided that the infrastructure manager remains liable for such amounts.

               (5)

               The infrastructure manager should not be allowed to recover the cost of investment in an asset where it is not obliged to repay that cost.

               (6)

               Since the modalities for the calculation of the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service should be applicable throughout the Union, they should be compatible with the existing infrastructure cost accounting systems and cost data applied by the infrastructure managers.

               (7)

               The use of forecast costs and performance levels should not give rise, under usual business circumstances, to higher levels of direct costs, track access charges and eventually an ineffective use of the network. Therefore historic asset values should be applied and only if such values are not available, or where current values are lower, could current values be considered. Alternatively, estimated values or replacement values, forecast costs and forecast performance levels could be used provided the infrastructure manager substantiates to the regulatory body how it established them and that it established them objectively.

               (8)

               The infrastructure manager should be allowed to include in the calculation of its direct costs only costs that it can objectively and robustly demonstrate that they are triggered directly by the operation of the train service. For example, wear and tear of track-side signals and signal boxes does not vary with traffic and therefore should not be subject to a direct cost-based charge (2). Conversely, parts, such as point infrastructure, will be exposed to wear and tear by operating the train service and thus should partially be subject to a direct cost charge. As sensors become more widely deployed on trains and infrastructure, these could provide additional information on the actual wear and tear caused by the train service.

               (9)

               The Court of Justice delivered a judgment on the calculation of direct costs incurred by operating the train service (3). This Regulation takes that judgement into account.

               (10)

               Electric supply equipment such as cables or transformers are generally not subject to wear and tear by the operation of the train service. These are neither exposed to friction nor to other impacts caused by the operation of the train service. Therefore these costs of electric supply equipment should not be included in the calculation of costs directly incurred by an operation of the train service. However, trains, when they use electric traction, wear down the contact medium (overhead wire or the electrified third rail) due to friction and the electric arcs they cause. Consequently, a part of the maintenance and renewal costs of these contact mediums could be considered as directly incurred by operation of the train service. Maintenance and renewal costs of other components of overhead line equipment can also degrade as a direct result of traffic movements which cause electrical and mechanical stress.

               (11)

               The use of vehicles or railway lines with certain design features results in different levels of direct costs incurred by the train service. Member States may allow their infrastructure managers to modulate average direct costs in accordance with, inter alia, best international practice to reflect such differences.

               (12)

               It is a well-established economic principle that user charges based on marginal costs ensure the optimum effective use of available infrastructure capacity. Hence, the infrastructure manager may decide to use the proxy of marginal costs for calculating its cost directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.

               (13)

               Furthermore, international best practice (4) has established methods and models such as econometric or engineering modelling, to calculate the marginal costs of infrastructure use. At the same time, international best practice will continue to develop as further independent analysis and research — verified independently of the infrastructure manager, such as by the Regulatory Body — is undertaken, including analysis and research which may be specific to an individual Member State because of particular infrastructure characteristics. Consequently, the infrastructure manager should be allowed to use such models to identify the direct costs incurred by the operation of the train service.

               (14)

               Different forms of econometric or engineering modelling might offer a higher degree of precision in calculating direct costs or marginal costs of the use of infrastructure. However, cost modelling requires a higher level of data quality and expertise than methods based on deducting from the full costs certain non-eligible cost categories. Moreover, regulatory bodies may not yet be able to verify the compliance of a concrete calculation with the provisions of Directive 2012/34/EU. Consequently, where these higher requirements are met, the infrastructure manager should be given the right to calculate direct costs on the basis of econometric or engineering modelling or a combination of both.

               (15)

               Regulatory bodies should be able to check whether the different charging principles are applied consistently with the information the infrastructure manager provided to them. Therefore, Annex IV of Directive 2012/34/EU requires the infrastructure manager to detail in the network statement the methodology, rules and, where applicable, scales as regards both costs and charges.

               (16)

               International studies (5) calculated values of direct unit costs in close collaboration with infrastructure managers. Although these studies analysed various methods used in Member States for different fleet compositions and different destinations, many values of direct costs per train kilometres were found to be below EUR 2 (at 2005 prices and exchange rates, using an appropriate price index) per train km of a 1 000 t train. To curb administrative effort for regulatory bodies, the same degree of detail should not be required of the calculation of direct costs when their value remains below this level.

               (17)

               For different reasons, such as productivity gains, the spread of new technologies or a better understanding of cost causation, the calculation of direct costs should be updated or reviewed regularly in accordance with, inter alia, best international practice.

               (18)

               Given that railway undertakings need predictable charging systems and have reasonable expectations for the development of infrastructure charges, the infrastructure manager should provide a phasing-in plan for railway undertakings operating the train services that may see their charges significantly increase following a review of the implementation of the existing calculation modalities, if such a phase-in plan is required by the regulatory body.

               (19)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 62(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Subject matter and scope
   1.   This Regulation sets out the modalities for the calculation of the costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service for the purpose of setting the charges for the minimum access package and access to infrastructure connecting service facilities referred to in Article 31(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU.
   2.   This Regulation shall apply without prejudice to the provisions regarding the financing of infrastructure or the equilibrium of income and expenditure of the infrastructure manager set out in Article 8 of Directive 2012/34/EU.
   Article 2
   Definitions
   For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

               (1)

               ‘direct cost’ means the cost which is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service;

               (2)

               ‘direct unit cost’ means the direct cost per train kilometre, vehicle kilometre, gross tonne kilometre of a train, or a combination of those;

               (3)

               ‘cost centre’ means a business unit within the infrastructure manager's accounting system to which costs are allocated for the sake of apportioning those costs directly or indirectly to a marketable service.

         Article 3
   Direct costs on a network-wide basis
   1.   Direct costs on a network-wide basis shall be calculated as the difference between, on the one hand, the costs for providing the services of the minimum access package and for the access to the infrastructure connecting service facilities and, on the other hand, the non-eligible costs referred to in Article 4.
   2.   The Member State may decide that the infrastructure manager applies the costs of efficient service provision for the purposes of calculation of direct costs on a network-wide basis referred to in paragraph 1.
   3.   Asset values used for the purpose of calculating direct costs on a network-wide basis shall be based on historic values or, where such values are not available or where current values are lower, on current values. Historic values of the assets shall be based on the amounts paid and documented by the infrastructure manager at the time of acquisition of these assets. In case of a debt relief, whereby all of part of the infrastructure manager's debts have been assumed by another entity, the infrastructure manager shall attribute a relevant part of the debt relief to reduce its asset values and the corresponding direct costs on a network-wide basis. By derogation from the first sentence, the infrastructure manager may apply values including estimated values or current values or replacement values if they can be transparently, robustly and objectively measured and duly justified to the regulatory body.
   4.   Without prejudice to Article 4 and if the infrastructure manager can transparently, robustly, and objectively measure and demonstrate on the basis of, inter alia, best international practice that costs are directly incurred by the operation of the train service, the infrastructure manager may include in the calculation of its direct costs on a network-wide basis in particular the following costs:

               (a)

               costs of staff needed for keeping open a particular stretch of line if an applicant requests to run a specific train service scheduled outside the regular opening hours of this line;

               (b)

               the part of the costs of points infrastructure, including switches and crossings, that is exposed to wear and tear by the train service;

               (c)

               the part of the costs of renewing and maintaining the overhead wire or the electrified third rail or both and the supporting overhead line equipment directly incurred as a result of operating the train service;

               (d)

               the costs of staff needed for preparing the allocation of train paths and the timetable to the extent that they are directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.

         5.   Costs used for calculation under this Article shall be based on payments effected or forecast by the infrastructure manager. Costs calculated under this Article shall be measured or forecast consistently on the basis of data from the same time period.
   Article 4
   Non-eligible costs
   1.   The infrastructure manager shall not include in the calculation of direct costs on a network-wide basis in particular the following costs:

               (a)

               fixed costs relating to the provision of a stretch of line which the infrastructure manager must bear even in the absence of train movements;

               (b)

               costs that do not relate to payments made by the infrastructure manager. Costs or cost centres that are not directly linked to the provision of the minimum access package or to access to infrastructure connecting service facilities;

               (c)

               costs of acquisition, selling, dismantling, decontamination, recultivation or renting of land or other fixed assets;

               (d)

               network-wide overhead costs, including overhead salaries and pensions;

               (e)

               financing costs;

               (f)

               costs related to technological progress or obsolescence;

               (g)

               costs of intangible assets;

               (h)

               costs of track-side sensors, track-side communication equipment and signalling equipment if not directly incurred by operation of the train service;

               (i)

               costs of information, non-track side located communication equipment or telecommunication equipment;

               (j)

               costs related to individual incidences of force majeure, accidents and service disruptions without prejudice to Article 35 of Directive 2012/34/EU;

               (k)

               costs of electric supply equipment for traction current if not directly incurred by operation of the train service. Direct costs of operation of the train services that do not use electric supply equipment shall not include costs of using the electric supply equipment;

               (l)

               costs related to the provision of information mentioned under item 1(f) of Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU, unless incurred by operation of the train service;

               (m)

               administrative costs incurred by schemes of differentiated charges referred to in Articles 31(5) and 32(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU;

               (n)

               depreciation which is not determined on the basis of real wear and tear of infrastructure due to the train service operation;

               (o)

               the part of the costs of maintenance and renewal of civil infrastructure that is not directly incurred by operation of the train service.

         2.   If the infrastructure manager received funding to finance specific infrastructure investments, which it is not obliged to repay and where such investments are taken into account in the calculation of direct costs, the costs of such investments shall not increase the level of charges without prejudice to Article 32 of Directive 2012/34/EU.
   3.   Costs excluded from calculation by virtue of this Article shall be measured or forecast on the basis of the time period referred to in Article 3(5).
   Article 5
   Calculation and modulation of direct unit costs
   1.   The infrastructure manager shall calculate average direct unit costs for the entire network by dividing the direct costs on a network-wide basis by the total number of vehicle kilometres, train kilometres or gross tonne kilometres forecasted for or actually operated.
   Alternatively, if the infrastructure manager demonstrates to the regulatory body referred to in Article 55 of Directive 2012/34/EU that the values or parameters mentioned in paragraph 2 are significantly different for different parts of its network, and after splitting its network into such parts, the infrastructure manager shall calculate average direct unit costs for the parts of its network by dividing the direct costs for these parts by the total number of vehicle kilometres, train kilometres or gross tonne kilometres forecast for or actually operated. The period of the forecast may cover several years.
   In order to calculate the average direct unit costs, the infrastructure manager may use a combination of vehicle kilometres, train kilometres or gross tonne kilometres provided this method of calculation does not alter the direct causation link with the operation of the train service. Without prejudice to Article 3(3), the infrastructure manager may apply outturn or forecast costs.
   2.   Member States may allow the infrastructure manager to modulate the average direct unit costs to take into account the different levels of wear and tear caused to the infrastructure according to one or more of the following parameters:

               (a)

               train length and/or number of vehicles in the train;

               (b)

               train mass;

               (c)

               type of vehicle, in particular its unsprung mass;

               (d)

               train speed;

               (e)

               traction power of the motorised unit;

               (f)

               axle weight and/or axle numbers;

               (g)

               recorded number of wheel flats or the effective use of equipment to protect against wheel slips;

               (h)

               longitudinal stiffness of vehicles and horizontal forces impacting on the track;

               (i)

               consumed and measured electric power or the dynamics of pantographs or contact shoes as a parameter to charge for the wear and tear of the overhead wire or the electric rail;

               (j)

               track parameters, in particular radii;

               (k)

               any other cost related parameters where the infrastructure manager can demonstrate to the regulatory body that values for each such parameter, including variation to each such parameter where relevant, are objectively measured and recorded.

         3.   A modulation of the direct unit costs shall not result in an increase of the direct costs on a network-wide basis as referred to in Article 3(1).
   4.   Additional costs incurred by the diversion, scheduled or otherwise, of trains at the instigation of the infrastructure manager shall not be included in the direct costs incurred by the operation of these train services. The first sentence shall not apply if the railway undertaking is reimbursed for those additional costs by the infrastructure manager or the diversion resulted from a coordination procedure in accordance with Article 46 of Directive 2012/34/EU.
   5.   The total number of vehicle kilometres, train kilometres, gross tonne kilometres or a combination of those used for the purposes of the calculations made under this Article shall be measured or forecast on the basis of the reference period referred to in Article 3(5).
   Article 6
   Cost modelling
   By derogation to Article 3(1) and the first sentence of Article 5(1), the infrastructure manager may calculate direct unit costs by means of robustly evidenced econometric or engineering cost modelling, provided it can demonstrate to the regulatory body that the direct unit costs include only direct costs incurred by the operation of the train service and, in particular, do not include any of the costs referred to in Article 4. The regulatory body may request the infrastructure manager to calculate for comparison direct unit costs in accordance with Article 3(1) and Article 5(1) or by means of cost modelling in accordance with the first sentence.
   Article 7
   Simplified control
   1.   If direct costs on a network-wide basis referred to in Article 3(1) or direct costs calculated on the basis of modelling referred to in Article 6 multiplied by the number of train kilometres, vehicle kilometres and/or gross tonne kilometre, operated in the reference period are equivalent to either less than 15 % of the full costs of maintenance and renewal or less than the sum of 10 % of maintenance costs and 20 % of renewal costs, the regulatory body may carry out the control referred to in Article 56(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU over the calculation of direct costs on a network-wide basis in a simplified manner. Member States may decide to increase the percentages mentioned in this paragraph to not more than twice the indicated values.
   2.   The regulatory body may accept the calculation of the average direct unit costs referred to in Article 5(1) and the modulated average direct unit costs referred to in Article 5(2) and/or cost modelling referred to in article 6 subject to the simplified control referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article if the average direct costs per train kilometre of a 1 000 tonne train amounts to not more than EUR 2 (at 2005 prices and exchange rates, using an appropriate price index).
   3.   Simplified controls as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied independently from one another. Simplified controls shall be without prejudice to Articles 31 or 56 of Directive 2012/34/EU.
   4.   The regulatory body shall determine the details of the simplified control.
   Article 8
   Review of the calculation
   The infrastructure manager shall regularly update the method of calculation of its direct costs taking into account, inter alia, the best international practice.
   Article 9
   Transitional provisions
   The infrastructure manager shall submit its method of calculation of direct costs and, if applicable, a phasing-in plan to the regulatory body no later than 3 July 2017.
   Article 10
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall apply from 1 August 2015.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 12 June 2015.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

      (1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32.

      (2)  The CATRIN study provides a synoptic view of different studies as regards the infrastructure characteristics used in econometric rail cost studies of seven EU infrastructure managers. Six of the seven infrastructure managers did not consider traffic management or signalling as a relevant characteristic for their econometric cost studies (see table 13, Deliverable 1 of the CATRIN study, p. 40).

      (3)  Judgement of the Court in Commission v Poland, C-512/10,, ECLI:EU:C:2013:338, paragraphs 82, 83 and 84.

      (4)  Deliverable D1 of the CATRIN study, coordinated by VTI, March 2008, p. 37-54 and p. 82-84.

      (5)  GRACE project coordinated by the University of Leeds, Deliverable D7 ‘Generalisation of marginal social cost estimates’, page 22, 23.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1596 of 21 September 2015 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Montes de Toledo (PDO)]

text:
               24.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 248/40

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1596
   of 21 September 2015
   approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Montes de Toledo (PDO)]
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Montes de Toledo’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2000 (2), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 593/2010 (3).

               (2)

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

               (3)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Montes de Toledo’ (PDO) are hereby approved.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 21 September 2015.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Phil HOGAN

            Member of the Commission

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1187/2000 of 5 June 2000 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 133, 6.6.2000, p. 19).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 593/2010 of 6 July 2010 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Montes de Toledo (PDO)] (OJ L 172, 7.7.2010, p. 1).

      (4)  OJ C 147, 5.5.2015, p. 16.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/473 of 31 March 2016 amending for the 244th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations

text:
               1.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 85/30

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/473
   of 31 March 2016
   amending for the 244th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaeda organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

               (2)

               On 28 March 2016, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to add one natural person to the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly.

               (3)

               In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this Regulation are effective, this Regulation should enter into force immediately,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with 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, 31 March 2016.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

            Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments

      (1)  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

      ANNEX
      In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, the following entry shall be added under the heading ‘Natural persons’:

         ‘Nayef Salam Muhammad Ujaym Al-Hababi (alias (a) Nayf Salam Muhammad Ujaym al-Hababi, (b) Faruq al-Qahtani, (c) Faruq al-Qatari, (d) Farouq al-Qahtani al Qatari, (e) Sheikh Farooq al-Qahtani, (f) Shaykh Imran Farouk, (g) Sheikh Faroq al-Qatari). Date of birth: (a) 1981, (b) Approximately 1980. Place of birth: Saudi Arabia. Nationality: (a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Qatar. Passport No: 592667 (Qatari passport issued on 3 May 2007). Address: Afghanistan (since 2009). Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 28.3.2016.’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/135 of 28 January 2015 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               29.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 23/11

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/135
   of 28 January 2015
   establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),
   Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

               (2)

               The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 28 January 2015.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Jerzy PLEWA

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (2)  OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

      ANNEX

         Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

                  (EUR/100 kg)

                  CN code

                  Third country code (1)

                  Standard import value

                  0702 00 00

                  EG

                  362,8

                  MA

                  99,0

                  TR

                  128,7

                  ZZ

                  196,8

                  0707 00 05

                  JO

                  229,9

                  TR

                  192,7

                  ZZ

                  211,3

                  0709 91 00

                  EG

                  122,4

                  ZZ

                  122,4

                  0709 93 10

                  EG

                  165,4

                  MA

                  226,4

                  TR

                  233,5

                  ZZ

                  208,4

                  0805 10 20

                  EG

                  47,9

                  IL

                  78,7

                  MA

                  55,0

                  TN

                  52,5

                  TR

                  77,7

                  ZZ

                  62,4

                  0805 20 10

                  IL

                  148,1

                  MA

                  90,6

                  ZZ

                  119,4

                  0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90

                  EG

                  74,4

                  IL

                  100,6

                  MA

                  133,5

                  TR

                  126,1

                  ZZ

                  108,7

                  0805 50 10

                  TR

                  56,2

                  ZZ

                  56,2

                  0808 10 80

                  BR

                  59,3

                  CL

                  89,3

                  MK

                  26,7

                  US

                  161,6

                  ZZ

                  84,2

                  0808 30 90

                  CL

                  316,1

                  US

                  138,7

                  ZZ

                  227,4

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


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1597 of 23 September 2015 derogating from Implementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2014 as regards the final date for the payment of the initial instalment of the advance to be paid to the beneficiary organisations in Greece in respect of work programmes in the olive oil and table olives sector for the year 2015

text:
               24.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 248/41

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1597
   of 23 September 2015
   derogating from Implementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2014 as regards the final date for the payment of the initial instalment of the advance to be paid to the beneficiary organisations in Greece in respect of work programmes in the olive oil and table olives sector for the year 2015
   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 point (b) of Article 31 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In accordance with Article 7(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 611/2014 (2), the first 3-year work programme period for support to the olive-oil and table-olives sector referred to in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 started on 1 April 2015.

               (2)

               Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2014 (3), Member States are to pay an initial instalment of the advance to be paid to the beneficiary organisations in respect of the first year of implementation of the approved work programmes by 31 May 2015. As stated in Article 4(1) of that Regulation, such advances are subject to the lodging of a security by the beneficiary organisation.

               (3)

               In Greece, the prevailing economic and banking conditions have put to a standstill certain approved work programmes, as their beneficiary organisations were not able to lodge the required security timely. Therefore, Greece could not pay them the initial instalment by 31 May 2015.

               (4)

               In view of this situation and in order to allow for the implementation of all the approved work programmes, it is necessary to provide for a derogation from Article 3(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2014 to enable Greece to pay the relevant initial instalment by 15 October 2015.

               (5)

               In the interest of an expedient implementation, this Regulation should apply from the day following that of its publication.

               (6)

               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 Greece and in respect of the year 2015, the final date referred to in the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2014 shall be 15 October 2015.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 23 September 2015.

            For the Commission

            The President

         Jean-Claude JUNCKER

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

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 611/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the support programmes for the olive-oil and table-olives sector (OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 55).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 615/2014 of 6 June 2014 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of work programmes to support the olive oil and table olives sectors (OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 95).