title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/413 of 14 March 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 as regards third countries recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security (Text with EEA relevance.)

text:
                  15.3.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 73/98

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/413
         of 14 March 2019
         amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 as regards third countries recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security
         (Text with EEA relevance)
         THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 (2) supplements the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008.

                     (2)

                     That same Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 charges the Commission with the recognition of the equivalence of security standards of third countries, in accordance with the criteria set out in Part E of the Annex to that Regulation.

                     (3)

                     The Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 (3) lists the third countries recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards.

                     (4)

                     The Commission has received confirmation from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that it will maintain its regulations and standards on aviation security equivalent to the Union legislation beyond the date of its withdrawal from the European Union on 30 March 2019.

                     (5)

                     The Commission has verified that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland satisfies the criteria set out in Part E of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009.

                     (6)

                     The Commission has established an appropriate process to reattribute to the other Member States the responsibility for the designation of air carriers, third country regulated agents and third country known consignors, currently designated by the United Kingdom as ACC3, RA3 and KC3 respectively, and that this process should be regulated through transitional implementing provisions.

                     (7)

                     The Commission and the Member States acknowledge the valuable contribution to the functioning of the EU secure supply chain of ACC3, RA3 and KC3 provided by the EU aviation security validators approved by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the opportunity to provide for the Member States to take over the responsibility for their approval as from 30 March 2019.

                     (8)

                     Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 should therefore be amended accordingly.

                     (9)

                     The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 is amended in accordance with 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.

            Article 3
            This Regulation shall apply from the day following that of which the Treaties cease to apply to and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland pursuant to Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, subject to any possible withdrawal agreement concluded in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.

            This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
            Done at Brussels, 14 March 2019.

                  For the Commission

                  The President

               Jean-Claude JUNCKER

            (1)  OJ L 97, 9.4.2008, p. 72.

            (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 of 2 April 2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 91, 3.4.2009, p. 7).

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 of 5 November 2015 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (OJ L 299, 14.11.2015, p. 1).

            ANNEX
            The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1998 is amended as follows:

                        (1)

                        In Chapter 3, Attachment 3-B is replaced by the following:
                        ‘ATTACHMENT 3-B

                        AIRCRAFT SECURITY

                           THIRD COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 355 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, TITLE VI OF PART THREE OF THAT TREATY DOES NOT APPLY, THAT ARE RECOGNISED AS APPLYING SECURITY STANDARDS EQUIVALENT TO THE COMMON BASIC STANDARDS ON CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

                        As regards aircraft security, the following third countries, as well as other countries and territories to which, in accordance with Article 355 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Title VI of Part Three of that Treaty does not apply, have been recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security:

                                       Canada

                                       Faroe Islands, in regard to Vagar airport

                                       Greenland, in regard to Kangerlussuaq airport

                                       Guernsey

                                       Isle of Man

                                       Jersey

                                       Montenegro

                                       Republic of Singapore, in regard to Singapore Changi Airport

                                       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

                                       United States of America

                              The Commission shall immediately notify the appropriate authorities of the Member States if it has information indicating that security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned with a significant impact on overall levels of aviation security in the Union are no longer equivalent to the common basic standards of the Union.
                        The appropriate authorities of the Member States shall be notified without delay when the Commission has information about actions, including compensatory measures, confirming that the equivalency of relevant security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned is re-established.’;

                        (2)

                        In Chapter 4, Attachment 4-B is replaced by the following:
                        ‘ATTACHMENT 4-B

                        PASSENGERS AND CABIN BAGGAGE

                           THIRD COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 355 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, TITLE VI OF PART THREE OF THAT TREATY DOES NOT APPLY, THAT ARE RECOGNISED AS APPLYING SECURITY STANDARDS EQUIVALENT TO THE COMMON BASIC STANDARDS ON CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

                        As regards passengers and cabin baggage, the following third countries, as well as other countries and territories to which, in accordance with Article 355 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Title VI of Part Three of that Treaty does not apply, have been recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security:

                                       Canada

                                       Faroe Islands, in regard to Vagar airport

                                       Greenland, in regard to Kangerlussuaq airport

                                       Guernsey

                                       Isle of Man

                                       Jersey

                                       Montenegro

                                       Republic of Singapore, in regard to Singapore Changi Airport

                                       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

                                       United States of America

                              The Commission shall immediately notify the appropriate authorities of the Member States if it has information indicating that security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned with a significant impact on overall levels of aviation security in the Union are no longer equivalent to the common basic standards of the Union.
                        The appropriate authorities of the Member States shall be notified without delay when the Commission has information about actions, including compensatory measures, confirming that the equivalency of relevant security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned is re-established.’;

                        (3)

                        In Chapter 5, Attachment 5-A is replaced by the following:
                        ‘ATTACHMENT 5-A

                        HOLD BAGGAGE

                           THIRD COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 355 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, TITLE VI OF PART THREE OF THAT TREATY DOES NOT APPLY, THAT ARE RECOGNISED AS APPLYING SECURITY STANDARDS EQUIVALENT TO THE COMMON BASIC STANDARDS ON CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

                        As regards hold baggage, the following third countries, as well as other countries and territories to which, in accordance with Article 355 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Title VI of Part Three of that Treaty does not apply, have been recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security:

                                       Canada

                                       Faroe Islands, in regard to Vagar airport

                                       Greenland, in regard to Kangerlussuaq airport

                                       Guernsey

                                       Isle of Man

                                       Jersey

                                       Montenegro

                                       Republic of Singapore, in regard to Singapore Changi Airport

                                       State of Israel, in regard to Ben Gurion International Airport

                                       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

                                       United States of America

                              The Commission shall notify without delay the appropriate authorities of the Member States if it has information indicating that security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned with a significant impact on overall levels of aviation security in the Union are no longer equivalent to the common basic standards of the Union.
                        The appropriate authorities of the Member States shall be notified without delay when the Commission has information about actions, including compensatory measures, confirming that the equivalency of relevant security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned is re-established.’;

                        (4)

                        In chapter 6, the following point 6.8.1.6 is added:

                                    ‘6.8.1.6

                                    Following the notification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of its intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuing Article 50 of the TEU, the ACC3 designations issued by this Member State are subject to the following provisions:

                                                (a)

                                                The responsibility for the current designations is transferred to the appropriate authority of the Member State listed in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2009, as amended for the purposes of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union.

                                                (b)

                                                The responsibility for ACC3 designations of air carriers not listed in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2009, as amended, is transferred to the appropriate authority as identified in point 6.8.1.1 (c).

                                                (c)

                                                The appropriate authority of the Member State as described in points (a) and (b) may agree with its counterpart in another Member State, for the latter to accept responsibility for the ACC3 designation of a given air carrier. In doing so, the concerned Member States shall promptly inform the Commission.

                                                (d)

                                                The Commission will inform the appropriate authority of the United Kingdom about the Member States taking over the responsibility of its ACC3 designations.

                                                (e)

                                                The appropriate authority of the United Kingdom shall make available to the appropriate authority of the receiving Member State, copy of the necessary documentation on which basis it had designated the air carriers listed in point (a) as ACC3. This shall include, at least, the complete validation report, the security programme and if applicable, the roadmap that was agreed with the relevant air carrier.

                                                (f)

                                                Provided the obligations in point (e) are satisfied, the transfer of responsibility for ACC3 designations shall occur on the day of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

                                                (g)

                                                ACC3 designations of air carriers operating exclusively to the United Kingdom shall be discontinued.

                                                (h)

                                                ACC3 designations transferred shall remain valid until their expiry and the receiving Member State takes over the responsibilities and obligations described in this Regulation.

                                                (i)

                                                The Commission will facilitate the administrative transition including the listing of the ACC3 details into the Union database on supply chain security.’

                        (5)

                        In chapter 6, the following point 6.8.4.10 is added:

                                    ‘6.8.4.10

                                    Following the notification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of its intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuing Article 50 of the TEU, designations of RA3 and KC3 issued by this Member State are subject to the following provisions:

                                                (a)

                                                The responsibility for RA3 or KC3 designation of an entity consisting of a branch or a subsidiary company of an airline operator, or of an air carrier itself, is transferred to the appropriate authority of the Member State identified in point 6.8.1.1 of this Regulation;

                                                (b)

                                                The responsibility for RA3 or KC3 designation of an entity not directly linked to an air carrier is transferred to the appropriate authority of the Member State identified in point 6.8.1.1 as holding the responsibility for the national or major air carrier of the third country where the RA3 or KC3 operates.

                                                (c)

                                                The responsibility for RA3 or KC3 designation of an entity not falling under points (a) or (b), is transferred to the appropriate authority of the Member State identified in point 6.8.1.1 as holding the responsibility for one of the Union air carriers operating from the airport where the RA3 or KC3 operates, or the closest airport to the site of this entity.

                                                (d)

                                                The appropriate authority of the Member State as described in points (a) to (c) may agree with its counterpart in another Member State, for the latter to accept responsibility for the RA3 or KC3 designation of a given entity or airline operator. In doing so, the concerned Member States shall promptly inform the Commission.

                                                (e)

                                                The Commission will inform the appropriate authority of the United Kingdom about the Member States taking over the responsibility of its RA3 and KC3 designations.

                                                (f)

                                                The appropriate authority of the United Kingdom shall make available to the appropriate authority of the receiving Member State, copy of the necessary documentation on which basis it had designated an entity or an airline operator as RA3 or KC3. This shall include, at least, the complete validation report and the security programme of the relevant entity or airline operator.

                                                (g)

                                                Provided the obligations in point (f) are satisfied, the transfer of responsibility for RA3 and KC3 designations shall occur on the day of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

                                                (h)

                                                RA3 and KC3 designations transferred shall remain valid until their expiry and the receiving Member State takes over the responsibilities and obligations described in this Regulation.

                                                (i)

                                                The Commission will facilitate the administrative transition including the listing of the RA3 and KC3 details into the Union database on supply chain security.’

                        (6)

                        In Chapter 6, Attachment 6-F is replaced by the following:
                        ‘ATTACHMENT 6-F

                        CARGO AND MAIL
                        6-Fi

                           THIRD COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 355 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, TITLE VI OF PART THREE OF THAT TREATY DOES NOT APPLY, THAT ARE RECOGNISED AS APPLYING SECURITY STANDARDS EQUIVALENT TO THE COMMON BASIC STANDARDS ON CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

                        As regards cargo and mail, the following third countries have been recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards on civil aviation security:

                                       Montenegro

                                       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

                              The Commission shall notify without delay the appropriate authorities of the Member States if it has information indicating that security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned with a significant impact on overall levels of aviation security in the Union are no longer equivalent to the common basic standards of the Union.
                        The appropriate authorities of the Member States shall be notified without delay when the Commission has information about actions, including compensatory measures, confirming that the equivalency of relevant security standards applied by the third country or other country or territory concerned is re-established.
                        6-Fii

                           THIRD COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 355 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, TITLE VI OF PART THREE OF THAT TREATY DOES NOT APPLY, FOR WHICH ACC3 DESIGNATION IS NOT REQUIRED, ARE LISTED IN COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION C(2015)8005.

                        6-Fiii

                           VALIDATION ACTIVITIES OF THIRD COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES TO WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 355 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, TITLE VI OF PART THREE OF THAT TREATY DOES NOT APPLY, THAT ARE RECOGNISED AS EQUIVALENT TO EU AVIATION SECURITY VALIDATION.

                        No provisions adopted yet.’;

                        (7)

                        In chapter 11, the following points 11.6.3.9 and 11.6.3.10 are added:

                                    ‘11.6.3.9

                                    As from the date of withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union pursuing Article 50 of the TEU, the following provisions apply in respect of EU aviation security validators approved by this Member State to perform validations in respect of airlines, operators and entities seeking respectively ACC3, RA3 and KC3 designation:

                                                (a)

                                                they are no longer recognised in the Union;

                                                (b)

                                                the EU aviation security validations performed before the date of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, including the EU validation reports issued before that date remain valid for the purpose of the designation of air carriers, operators and entities they have validated;

                                    11.6.3.10

                                    Individuals and entities indicated in the previous point may seek approval as EU aviation security validator by the appropriate authority of a Member State. The approving Member State shall:

                                                (a)

                                                Obtain from the appropriate authority of the United Kingdom the necessary documentation on which basis the individual or legal entity had been approved as EU aviation security validator;

                                                (b)

                                                Verify that the applicant fulfils the Union requirements in this Chapter. If the appropriate authority is satisfied, it may approve the individual or the entity as EU aviation security validator for a period not exceeding the approval that was granted by the appropriate authority of the United Kingdom;

                                                (c)

                                                Promptly inform the Commission that will ensure the listing of the EU aviation security validator into the Union database on supply chain security.’


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/459 of 21 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt

text:
                  22.3.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 80/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/459
         of 21 March 2019
         implementing Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt
         THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (1), and in particular Article 12(4) thereof,
         Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 270/2011.

                     (2)

                     Annex I should be supplemented with information regarding the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

                     (3)

                     Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 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, 21 March 2019.

                  For the Council

                  The President

               G. CIAMBA

            (1)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4.

            ANNEX
            Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 is replaced by the following:

                     ‘ANNEX I
                     A.   List of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 2(1)

                                 Name
                                 (and any aliases)

                                 Identifying information

                                 Grounds for designation

                                 1.

                                 Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak

                                 Former President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
                                 Date of birth: 4.5.1928
                                 Male

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption.

                                 2.

                                 Suzanne Saleh Thabet

                                 Spouse of Mr Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, former President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
                                 Date of birth: 28.2.1941
                                 Female

                                 Associated with Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, who is subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption.

                                 3.

                                 Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak

                                 Son of Mr. Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, former President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
                                 Date of birth: 26.11.1960
                                 Male

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption.

                                 4.

                                 Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh

                                 Spouse of Mr Alaa Mohamed Elsayed Mubarak, son of former President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
                                 Date of birth: 5.10.1971
                                 Female

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption, and associated with Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak.

                                 5.

                                 Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak

                                 Son of Mr. Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, former President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
                                 Date of birth: 28.12.1963
                                 Male

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption.

                                 6.

                                 Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal

                                 Spouse of Mr Gamal Mahamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, son of former President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
                                 Date of birth: 13.10.1982
                                 Female

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings or an asset recovery process by the Egyptian authorities following a final court ruling in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption, and associated with Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak.

                                 15.

                                 Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana

                                 Former Minister of Tourism
                                 Date of birth: 20.2.1959
                                 Male

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings by the Egyptian authorities in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption.

                                 18.

                                 Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli

                                 Former Minister of Interior
                                 Date of birth: 1.3.1938
                                 Male

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings by the Egyptian authorities in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption.

                                 19.

                                 Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar

                                 Spouse of Mr Habib Ibrahim Eladli
                                 Date of birth: 23.1.1963
                                 Female

                                 Person subject to judicial proceedings in respect of the misappropriation of State Funds on the basis of the United Nations Convention against corruption, and associated with Habib Ibrahim Eladli.

                           B.   Rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection under Egyptian law:
                     The rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection
                     It follows from Articles 54, 97 and 98 of the Egypt Constitution, Articles 77, 78, 124, 199, 214, 271, 272 and 277 of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act and Articles 93 and 94 of the Egypt Advocacy Act (Law No 17 of 1983) that the following rights are guaranteed under Egyptian law:

                                 —

                                 to any individual suspected of or charged with a criminal offence:

                                             1.

                                             the right to judicial review of any act or administrative decision;

                                             2.

                                             the right to defend himself/herself in person or through legal assistance of his/her own choosing or, if he/she has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

                                 —

                                 to any individual charged with a criminal offence:

                                             1.

                                             the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he/she understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/her;

                                             2.

                                             the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his/her defence;

                                             3.

                                             the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him/her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his/her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him/her;

                                             4.

                                             the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he/she cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

                           Application of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection
                     1.   Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Mubarak were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     First case
                     On 27 June 2013, Mr Mubarak was charged together with two other individuals with misappropriation of public funds and proceedings were initiated before the Cairo Criminal Court on 17 November 2013. On 21 May 2014, that Court convicted the three defendants. The defendants challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation. On 13 January 2015, the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial. On retrial, on 4 and 29 April 2015, verbal and written pleadings of the parties were presented. On 9 May 2015, the Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants, ordered the restitution of the misappropriated funds and ordered the payment of a fine. On 24 May 2015, an appeal was lodged with the Court of Cassation. On 9 January 2016, the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions. On 8 March 2016, the defendants reached a settlement within the Experts Committee set up by Prime Ministerial Decree No 2873 of 2015. That settlement was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 9 March 2016. That settlement was not submitted to the Court of Cassation for final approval by the Prosecutor General because the Experts Committee was not the competent committee. It is open to the defendants to submit a request for settlement to the competent committee, the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA).
                     Second case
                     The investigation relating to facts of misappropriation of public funds or assets is still ongoing. The Council has found no indication that the rights of defence or the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Mubarak were not respected.
                     3.   Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Alaa Mubarak were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     Freezing order
                     On 28 February 2011, the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Mr Alaa Mubarak and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On 8 March 2011, the competent Criminal Court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Mr Alaa Mubarak has not challenged the ruling of 8 March 2011.
                     First case
                     The defendant was referred together with another individual to the trial court (Cairo Criminal Court) on 30 May 2012. On 6 June 2013, the Court returned the case to the public prosecution for further investigations. After the conclusion of the investigations, the case was referred again to the Court. On 15 September 2018, the Cairo Criminal Court delivered a judgment by which: (i) it requested the expert committee it had appointed to complement the expert report it had submitted to the court in July 2018; (ii) ordered the arrest of the defendants; and (iii) asked to refer the defendants to the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA) with a view to a possible reconciliation. The defendants successfully challenged the order of arrest and, following a motion of recusal of the judicial panel, the case was referred to another circuit of the criminal court to review the merits.
                     Second case
                     On 27 June 2013, Mr Alaa Mubarak was charged together with two other individuals with misappropriation of public funds and proceedings were initiated before the Cairo criminal court on 17 November 2013. On 21 May 2014, that Court convicted the three defendants. The defendants challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation. On 13 January 2015, the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial. On retrial, on 4 and 29 April 2015, verbal and written pleadings of the parties were presented.
                     On 9 May 2015, the Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants, ordered the restitution of the misappropriated funds and ordered the payment of a fine. On 24 May 2015, an appeal was lodged with the Court of Cassation. On 9 January 2016, the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions. On 8 March 2016, the defendants reached a settlement within the Experts Committee set up by Prime Ministerial Decree No 2873 of 2015. This settlement was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 9 March 2016. This settlement was not submitted to the Court of Cassation for final approval by the Prosecutor General because the Experts Committee was not the competent committee. It is open to the defendants to submit a request for settlement to the competent committee, the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA).
                     Third case
                     The investigation relating to facts of misappropriation of public funds or assets is still ongoing. The Council has found no indication that the rights of the defence or the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Alaa Mubarak were not respected.
                     4.   Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Ms Rasekh were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     Freezing order
                     On 28 February 2011, the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Ms Rasekh and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On 8 March 2011, the competent Criminal Court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Ms Rasekh has not challenged the ruling of 8 March 2011.
                     Case
                     The investigation relating to facts of misappropriation of public funds or assets is still ongoing The Council has found no indication that the rights of the defence or the right to effective judicial protection of Ms Rasekh were not respected.
                     5.   Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Gamal Mubarak were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     Freezing order
                     On 28 February 2011, the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Mr Gamal Mubarak and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On 8 March 2011, the competent criminal Court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Mr Gamal Mubarak has not challenged the ruling of 8 March 2011.
                     First case
                     Mr Gamal Mubarak and another individual were referred to the trial court (Cairo Criminal Court) on 30 May 2012. On 6 June 2013, the Court returned the case to the public prosecution for further investigations. After the conclusion of the investigations, the case was referred again to the court. On 15 September 2018, the Cairo Criminal Court delivered a judgment by which: (i) it requested the expert committee it had appointed to complement the expert report it had submitted to the Court in July 2018; (ii) ordered the arrest of the defendants; and (iii) asked to refer the defendants to the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA) with a view to a possible reconciliation. The defendants successfully challenged the order of arrest and, following a motion of recusal of the judicial panel, the case was referred to another circuit of the criminal court to review the merits.
                     Second case
                     On 27 June 2013, Mr Gamal Mubarak was charged together with two other individuals with misappropriation of public funds and proceedings were initiated before the Cairo Criminal Court on 17 November 2013. On 21 May 2014, that Court convicted the three defendants. The defendants challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation. On 13 January 2015, the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict and ordered a retrial. On retrial, on 4 and 29 April 2015, verbal and written pleadings of the parties were presented. On 9 May 2015, the Cairo Criminal Court convicted the defendants, ordered the restitution of the misappropriated funds and ordered the payment of a fine. On 24 May 2015, an appeal was lodged with the Court of Cassation. On 9 January 2016, the Court of Cassation upheld the convictions. On 8 March 2016, the defendants reached a settlement within the Experts Committee set up by Prime Ministerial Decree No 2873 of 2015. This settlement was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 9 March 2016. This settlement was not submitted to the Court of Cassation for final approval by the Prosecutor General because the Experts Committee was not the competent committee. It is open to the defendants to submit a request for settlement to the competent committee, the National Committee for Recovery of Assets Located Abroad (NCRAA).
                     Third case
                     The investigation relating to facts of misappropriation of public funds or assets is still ongoing. In the course of the investigation proceedings Mr Gamal Mubarak has been questioned. The Council has found no indication that the rights of the defence or the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Gamal Mubarak were not respected.
                     6.   Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Ms El Gammal were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     Freezing order
                     On 28 February 2011, the Prosecutor General issued an order prohibiting Ms Khadiga El Gammal and other individuals from disposing of their assets and funds in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. On 8 March 2011, the competent criminal court upheld the prohibition order. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Ms El Gammal has not challenged the ruling of 8 March 2011.
                     Case
                     The investigation relating to facts of misappropriation of public funds or assets is still ongoing. The Council has found no indication that the rights of defence or the right to effective judicial protection of Ms El Gammal were not respected.
                     15.   Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Garrana were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     Case
                     The investigation relating to facts of misappropriation of public funds or assets is still ongoing. The Council has found no indication that the rights of defence or the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Garrana were not respected.
                     18.   Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Mr Eladli were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     Case
                     Mr Eladli was referred by the investigating judge to the competent trial court on charges of misappropriation of public funds. On 7 February 2016, that Court decided that the assets of Mr Eladli, his spouse and minor son should be frozen. Pursuant to that Court decision the Prosecutor General issued a freezing order on 10 February 2016 in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. On 15 April 2017, the Court convicted the defendant. The defendant challenged this judgment before the Court of Cassation, which quashed the verdict on 11 January 2018 and ordered a retrial. The new trial is still ongoing.
                     19.   Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar
                     The information on the Council's file shows that the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of Ms Sharshar were respected in the criminal proceedings on which the Council relied. This is demonstrated in particular as follows:
                     Freezing order
                     The husband of Ms Sharshar was referred by the investigating judge to the competent trial court on charges of misappropriation of public funds. On 7 February 2016, that Court decided that the assets of her husband, her own and those of their minor son should be frozen. Pursuant to that Court decision the Prosecutor General issued a freezing order on 10 February 2016 in accordance with Article 208 bis/a of the Egypt Criminal Procedures Act, which allows the Prosecutor General to prohibit the defendant, his wife and his children from disposing of their assets if there are any doubts that such assets are the illegal proceeds of the crimes committed by that defendant. Pursuant to the laws of the Arab Republic of Egypt, defendants have the right to challenge the court ruling on the prohibition order before the same court. Ms Sharshar has not challenged the Court ruling.

               ’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/537 of 28 March 2019 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) (PDO))

text:
                  2.4.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 93/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/537
         of 28 March 2019
         entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) (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 Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application submitted by Bulgaria to register the name ‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) as a protected designation of origin has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

                     (2)

                     As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) should therefore be entered in the register,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

            Article 1
            The name ‘Странджански манов мед’ (Strandzhanski manov med)/‘Maнов мед от Странджа’ (Manov med ot Strandzha) (PDO) is registered.
            The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.4. Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

            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, 28 March 2019.

                  For the Commission,

                  On behalf of the President,

               Phil HOGAN

                  Member of the Commission

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

            (2)  OJ C 449, 13.12.2018, p. 11.

            (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).