(1)

Article 54(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (Financial Regulation) allows for the implementation of the Community budget through centralised indirect management and sets specific requirements for implementation.

(2)

In the area of pre-accession aid, centralised indirect management in the form set out in Article 54(2)(c) of the Financial Regulation has proved a valuable tool in the past, in particular concerning the operations of the Office for Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (TAIEX).

(3)

Turkey has been a major user of TAIEX operations over the last years, and should be put in a position to continue using this instrument also according to the rules set up by the Financial Regulation.

(4)

A harmonised approach in the area of pre-accession assistance is desirable and therefore the formula used should be identical to the one foreseen for Council Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 (Phare) (3) and (EC) No 2666/2000 (CARDS) (4).

(5)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 of 17 December 2001 concerning pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey (5) should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

The mechanism provided for in Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) has proved unsuitable for dealing with situations of non-reciprocity in which a third country on the list in Annex II to that Regulation, i.e. a third country whose nationals are exempt from the visa requirement, maintains or introduces a visa requirement for nationals from one or more Member States. Solidarity with the Member States experiencing situations of non-reciprocity requires that the existing mechanism be adapted so as to make it effective.

(2)

Given the seriousness of such situations of non-reciprocity, it is essential that they should be notified without fail by the Member State(s) concerned. To ensure that the third country in question again applies visa-free travel to nationals of the Member States concerned, a mechanism should be provided which will combine measures at variable levels and intensities that can be rapidly carried out. Thus the Commission should take steps with the third country without delay, report to the Council and be able at any moment to propose that the Council adopt a provisional decision restoring the visa requirement for nationals of the third country in question. Resorting to such a provisional decision should not make it impossible to transfer the third country in question to Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. A temporal link should also be provided between the entry into force of the provisional measure and any proposal to transfer the country to Annex I.

(3)

A decision by a third country to introduce or reintroduce visa-free travel for nationals of one or more Member States should automatically terminate the provisional restoration of a visa requirement decided by the Council.

(4)

The amended solidarity mechanism aims at achieving full reciprocity in respect of all Member States and creating an effective and accountable mechanism in order to ensure it.

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 should be amended accordingly.

(6)

Transitional arrangements should be provided for where, when this Regulation comes into force, Member States are subject to a visa requirement by third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001.

(7)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis, within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (3), which fall within the area referred to in Article 1(B) of Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement (4).

(8)

The United Kingdom and Ireland are not bound by Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. They are therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and are not bound by it or subject to its application.

(9)

As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement signed between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (5), which fall in the area referred to in Article 1(B) of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2004/849/EC (6) and Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2004/860/EC (7),

1.

Paragraph 4 shall be replaced by the following:

2.

The following paragraph shall be added:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

(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 1 June 2005, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly.

(3)

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

(1)

The following existing active substances have been included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC: maleic hydrazide by Commission Directive 2003/31/EC (4); propyzamide by Commission Directive 2003/39/EC (5); and mecoprop and mecoprop-p by Commission Directive 2003/70/EC (6).

(2)

The new active substances isoxaflutole, trifloxystrobin, carfentrazone-ethyl and fenamidone were included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC by Commission Directive 2003/68/EC (7).

(3)

The inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances concerned was based on the assessment of the information submitted concerning the proposed use. Information relating to this use has been submitted by certain Member States in accordance with Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 91/414/EEC. The information available has been reviewed and is sufficient to allow certain maximum residue levels (MRLs) to be fixed.

(4)

Where no Community MRL or provisional MRL exists, Member States are to establish a national provisional MRL in accordance with Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 91/414/EEC before plant protection products containing these active substances may be authorised.

(5)

Community MRLs and the levels recommended by the Codex Alimentarius are fixed and evaluated following similar procedures. There are a limited number of Codex MRLs for maleic hydrazide. There are already Community MRLs in Directive 90/642/EEC for: maleic hydrazide, (Council Directive 93/58/EC) (8) and in Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC for: propyzamide (Council Directives 96/32/EC (9) and 96/33/EC (10)). These have been considered when setting the MRLs concerned by the adaptations made by this Directive. Codex MRLs that will be recommended for withdrawal in the near future were not taken into account. The MRLs based on Codex MRLs having been evaluated in the light of the risks for the consumers. No risk was established when using the toxicological end points based on the studies available to the Commission.

(6)

With respect to the inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC of the active substances concerned, the related technical and scientific evaluations were finalised in the form of Commission review reports. The assessment reports for those substances mentioned were finalised on the dates as mentioned in the Commission Directives cited in Recitals 1 and 2. These reports fixed the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and if necessary, the acute reference dose (ARfD) for the substances concerned. The exposure of consumers of food products treated with the active substance concerned has been assessed and evaluated in accordance with Community procedures. Account has also been taken of guidelines published by the World Health Organisation (11) and the opinion of the Scientific Committee for Plants (12) on the methodology employed. It is concluded that MRLs proposed will not lead to those ADIs or ARfD being exceeded.

(7)

In order to ensure that the consumer is adequately protected from exposure to residues resulting from unauthorised uses of plant protection products, provisional MRLs should be set for the relevant product/pesticide combinations at the lower limit of analytical determination.

(8)

The setting at Community level of such provisional MRLs does not prevent the Member States from establishing provisional MRLs for the substances concerned in accordance with Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Annex VI thereto. It is considered that a period of four years is sufficient to permit further uses of the active substance concerned. The provisional MRL should then become definitive.

(9)

It is therefore necessary to add or replace, all of the pesticide residues arising from the use of these plant protection products to the Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC to allow for proper surveillance and control of the prohibition of their uses and to protect the consumer. Where MRLs have already been defined in the annexes to those directives it is appropriate to modify them. Where MRLs have not been defined until now, it is appropriate to set them for the first time.

(10)

Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)

in Part A of Annex II the maximum pesticide residue levels for isoxaflutole, trifloxystrobin, carfentrazone-ethyl, mecoprop, mecoprop-p, maleic hydrazide and fenamidone as shown in Annex I to this Directive are added;

(b)

in Part A of Annex II the maximum pesticide residue levels for propyzamide are replaced by those as shown in Annex II to this Directive.

(a)

in Annex II the maximum pesticide residue levels for isoxaflutole, trifloxystrobin, carfentrazone-ethyl, mecoprop, mecoprop-p and fenamidone as shown in Annex III to this Directive are added.

(b)

in Annex II the maximum pesticide residue levels for propyzamide and maleic hydrazide are replaced by those as shown in Annex IV to this Directive.

(1)

Commission Decision 2004/696/EC of 14 October 2004 on the list of programmes for the eradication and the monitoring of certain TSEs qualifying for a financial contribution from the Community in 2005 (2) sets out the list of such programmes, as well as the proposed rate and amount of the contribution for each programme.

(2)

Commission Decision 2004/863/EC of 30 November 2004 approving the TSE eradication and monitoring programmes of certain Member States for 2005 and fixing the level of the Community’s financial contribution (3).

(3)

On 28 January 2005, a Community expert panel, chaired by the Community Reference laboratory for TSEs (CRL), confirmed the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a goat slaughtered in France. It was the first case of BSE in a small ruminant under natural conditions.

(4)

In its statement of 28 January 2005, the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stressed that the significance of that single case of BSE infection in a goat in France is yet to be assessed. In order to do so, the EFSA indicated that the results of an increased monitoring of TSEs in goats are essential.

(5)

In response to that statement, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (4), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2005 (5), introduced a new programme for the monitoring of TSE in caprine animals starting from 11 February 2005. Under that new monitoring programme, the numbers of healthy slaughter and dead-on-farm caprine animals to be tested have been substantially increased.

(6)

Due to the particularities of the goat meat sector, the limited value of goats above 18 months of age for slaughter purposes, and in the light of the importance of an effective implementation of the increased monitoring to assess the prevalence of BSE in caprine animals, it is appropriate to increase the amount per test to be reimbursed to the Member States by the Community up to a maximum amount of EUR 30 per rapid test performed in caprine animals.

(7)

In addition, Regulation (EC) 999/2001, as amended Commission Regulation (EC) No 36/2005 (6) sets out the compulsory systematic discriminatory testing to differentiate BSE from scrapie in all TSE cases detected in ovine and caprine animals to apply from 14 January 2005. That measure should be considered as eligible for the Community’s financial contribution to the TSE monitoring and eradication programmes in the Member States.

(8)

In the light of the importance to assess the prevalence of BSE in small ruminants for the achievement of Community objectives in the field of public and animal health it is appropriate to reimburse 100% of the costs paid by the Member States for the primary molecular tests to differentiate BSE from scrapie.

(9)

Therefore, it is necessary to revise the maximum amount of financial participation by the Community for each programme, as set out in Decisions 2004/696/EC and 2004/863/EC.

(10)

Decision 2004/863/EC sets out the conditions for the Community’s financial contribution, including the forwarding of a monthly report to the Commission by the concerned Member States on the progress of the TSE monitoring programmes and the cost paid. The Annex to that sets out the costs to be paid. That Annex should be amended to take account of amendments to Annexes III and X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 36/2005 and No 214/2005.

(11)

Decisions 2004/696/EC and 2004/863/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(12)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,

1.

in Article 1(2), ‘EUR 3 550 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 3 586 000’;

2.

in Article 2(2), ‘EUR 1 700 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 736 000’;

3.

in Article 3(2), ‘EUR 2 375 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 2 426 000’;

4.

in Article 4(2), ‘EUR 15 020 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 15 170 000’;

5.

in Article 5(2), ‘EUR 290 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 294 000’;

6.

in Article 6(2), ‘EUR 585 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 487 000’;

7.

in Article 7(2), ‘EUR 4 780 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 8 846 000’;

8.

in Article 8(2), ‘EUR 24 045 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 29 755 000’;

9.

in Article 9(2), ‘EUR 6 170 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 6 172 000’;

10.

in Article 10(2), ‘EUR 6 660 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 8 677 000’;

11.

in Article 11(2), ‘EUR 85 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 353 000’;

12.

in Article 12(2), ‘EUR 835 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 836 000’;

13.

in Article 13(2), ‘EUR 145 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 155 000’;

14.

in Article 14(2), ‘EUR 1 085 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 184 000’;

15.

in Article 15(2), ‘EUR 35 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 36 000’;

16.

in Article 16(2), ‘EUR 4 270 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 4 510 000’;

17.

in Article 17(2), ‘EUR 1 920 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 2 076 000’;

18.

in Article 18(2), ‘EUR 1 135 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 480 000’;

19.

in Article 19(2), ‘EUR 435 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 444 000’;

20.

in Article 20(2), ‘EUR 1 160 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 170 000’;

21.

in Article 21(2), ‘EUR 305 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 313 000’;

22.

in Article 22(2), ‘EUR 5 570 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 5 690 000’;

23.

Article 23 is replaced by the following:

24.

the Annex is replaced by Annex II to this Decision.

(1)

Commission Decision 2003/634/EC (2) approves and lists programmes submitted by various Member States. The programmes are designed to enable the Member State subsequently to initiate the procedures for a zone, or a farm situated in a non-approved zone, to obtain the status of approved zone or of approved farm situated in a non-approved zone, as regards one or more of the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN).

(2)

By letter dated 23 September 2004, Italy applied for approval of the programme to be applied in the zone ‘Zona Valle di Tosi’. The application submitted has been found to comply with Article 10 of Directive 91/67/EEC and the programme should therefore be approved.

(3)

Decision 2003/634/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(1)

Title I of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) establishes a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals.

(2)

Commission Decision 2004/588/EC (3) recognises the fully operational character of the Maltese database for bovine animals.

(3)

Pursuant to Directive 93/24/EEC, the Member States may, at their request, be authorised to use administrative sources instead of surveys of the bovine population on the condition that they satisfy the obligations arising out of the said Directive.

(4)

In support of its request of 11 March 2005, Malta submitted technical documentation on the structure and updating of the database referred to in Title I of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and on the methods of calculating the statistical data.

(5)

In particular, Malta proposed the calculation methods for obtaining the statistical data for the categories referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/24/EEC, which are not directly available in the database referred to in Title I of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. Malta should take all the appropriate measures to ensure that these calculation methods produce accurate statistical data.

(6)

Following examination of the request based on the technical documentation provided by the Maltese authorities, the request should be met.

(7)

This Decision is in compliance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics established by Council Decision 72/279/EEC (4),