26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/1

(1)

Tax fraud in the field of value added tax (VAT) leads to considerable budget losses and affects the conditions of competition and thus the operation of the internal market. Specific sudden and massive forms of tax fraud have recently developed especially via the use of electronic means which facilitate rapid illegitimate trade on a large scale.

(2)

Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) allows Member States to apply for a derogation from that Directive in order to prevent certain forms of tax evasion or avoidance.

(3)

Recent experience has demonstrated that the procedure provided for in Article 395 of Directive 2006/112/EC is not able to respond quickly enough to requests by Member States for urgent measures.

(4)

Experience has also shown that the designation of the recipient as the person liable for the payment of the VAT (reverse charge) is, in certain cases, an effective measure to stop VAT fraud in specific sectors.

(5)

Under the reverse charge provisions in Articles 199 and 199a of Directive 2006/112/EC, Member States do not have the flexibility to respond quickly to sudden and massive fraud in categories of goods and services falling outside the scope of those Articles. Specific arrangements therefore need to be made to address these circumstances.

(6)

Considering the massive instances of fraud that have occurred, a rapid and exceptional response to further instances of sudden fraud is best guaranteed by a Quick Reaction Mechanism ("QRM") special measure consisting of the option to apply for a short period a reverse charge, following appropriate notification by the Member State concerned. In order to ensure the exercising of the option is proportionate to the problem, the Commission, once it is in possession of the relevant information, should have a short period in which to appraise the notification and confirm whether it objects to the QRM special measure. Member States should have the opportunity for their views to be taken into account by the Commission, and should therefore be fully informed of the notification and any additional information provided throughout the process. Additionally, the Council should then decide on any further application of the reverse charge by an implementing Decision pursuant to Article 395 of Directive 2006/112/EC.

(7)

The Member State that has notified its intention to apply the QRM special measure may do so once the Commission has notified the absence of objection.

(8)

In order to provide for the further application of the reverse charge, at the earliest opportunity and before the expiry of the QRM special measure, the procedure laid down in Article 395 of Directive 2006/112/EC should be subject to a shorter deadline.

(9)

Rapid processing of Member States' notifications under the QRM will be facilitated if a standardised form is established for those notifications and for the provision of any additional information to the Commission. Implementing powers should therefore be conferred on the Commission as regards that standardised form.

(10)

Since a QRM can only be a temporary solution pending longer term legislative solutions with a view to making the VAT system more resilient to instances of VAT fraud, the QRM should only apply for a limited period of time.

(11)

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the QRM, the Commission should prepare an overall assessment report on the impact of the mechanism in addressing instances of sudden and massive fraud.

(12)

Since the objective of the action to be taken, namely to address sudden and massive fraud phenomena in the field of VAT which very often have an international dimension, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, as they are not in a position to individually counter the fraud circuits related to new forms of trade which involve several countries at the same time, and can therefore, by reason of ensuring a quicker and, as a result, a more adequate and effective response to these phenomena, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(13)

Directive 2006/112/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

the following Article is inserted:

"Article 199b

1.   A Member State may, in cases of imperative urgency and in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3, designate the recipient as the person liable to pay VAT on specific supplies of goods and services by derogation from Article 193 as a Quick Reaction Mechanism ("QRM") special measure to combat sudden and massive fraud liable to lead to considerable and irreparable financial losses.

The QRM special measure shall be subject to appropriate control measures by the Member State with respect to taxable persons who supply the goods or services to which that measure applies, and shall be for a period not exceeding nine months.

2.   A Member State wishing to introduce a QRM special measure as provided for in paragraph 1 shall send a notification to the Commission using the standardised form established in accordance with paragraph 4 and at the same time send it to the other Member States. The Member State shall provide the Commission with the information indicating the sector concerned, the type and the features of the fraud, the existence of imperative grounds of urgency, the sudden and massive character of the fraud and its consequences in terms of considerable and irreparable financial losses. If the Commission considers it does not have all the necessary information, it shall contact the Member State concerned within two weeks of receipt of the notification and specify what additional information is required. Any additional information provided by the Member State concerned to the Commission shall at the same time be sent to the other Member States. If the additional information provided is not sufficient, the Commission shall inform the Member State concerned thereof within one week.

The Member State wishing to introduce a QRM special measure as provided for in paragraph 1 shall at the same time also make an application to the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 395(2) and (3).

3.   Once the Commission has all the information it considers necessary for appraisal of the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, it shall notify the Member States thereof. Where it objects to the QRM special measure, it shall produce a negative opinion within one month of that notification, and shall inform the Member State concerned and the VAT Committee thereof. Where the Commission does not object, it shall confirm this in writing to the Member State concerned and to the VAT Committee within the same time period. The Member State may adopt the QRM special measure from the date of receipt of that confirmation. In appraising the notification, the Commission shall take into account the views of any other Member State sent to it in writing.

4.   The Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing a standardised form for the submission of the notification for the QRM special measure referred to in paragraph 2 and of the information referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in paragraph 5.

5.   Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) shall apply and for this purpose the committee shall be the committee established by Article 58 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (5).

(2)

in Article 395, the following paragraph is added:

"5.   In cases of imperative urgency as set out in Article 199b(1), the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be completed within six months of receipt of the application by the Commission.".

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/4

(1)

Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) specifies that value added tax (VAT) shall be payable by any taxable person carrying out transactions involving the taxable supply of goods or services. For cross-border transactions and for certain domestic high risk sectors, however, it provides for a shift of the obligation to pay VAT to the person to whom the supply is made (the reverse charge mechanism).

(2)

Given the seriousness of VAT fraud, Member States should be allowed to apply, on a temporary basis, a mechanism whereby the obligation to pay VAT with regard to supplies of certain categories of goods and services shifts onto the person to whom the taxable supply of goods or services is made, including where those categories are neither listed in Article 199 of Directive 2006/112/EC nor subject to specific derogations granted to Member States.

(3)

To that end, the Commission came forward with a proposal in 2009, listing a number of goods and services to which, for a limited period, the reverse charge mechanism could be applied. The Council opted for splitting the proposal and adopted Council Directive 2010/23/EU (4), which was however limited to greenhouse gas emission allowances only, given that the fraud situation in that sector required an immediate reaction. At the same time, the Council took the political commitment to continue negotations on the remaining part of the Commission proposal.

(4)

Since then, fraud has occurred in other sectors and, therefore, new goods and services should be added to the remaining part of the Commission proposal as regards the pre-defined list of goods and services to which the reverse charge could apply. In particular, fraud has occurred in relation to supplies of gas and electricity, telecommunication services, game consoles, tablet PC's and laptops, cereals, industrial crops including oil seeds and sugar beets, and raw and semi-finished metals including precious metals.

(5)

The introduction of the reverse charge mechanism targeting those goods and services, which according to recent experience are particularly susceptible to fraud, as opposed to its general application, should not adversely affect the fundamental principles of the VAT system, such as fractionated payments.

(6)

The pre-defined list, from which Member States may choose, should be restricted to supplies of goods and services which, according to recent experience, are particularly susceptible to fraud.

(7)

In applying the reverse charge mechanism, Member States have the discretion to lay down the conditions for the application of the mechanism including the setting of thresholds, the categories of suppliers or recipients to whom this mechanism may apply and the partial application of the mechanism within categories.

(8)

Since a reverse charge mechanism is a temporary measure pending longer term legislative solutions with a view to making the VAT system more resilient to instances of VAT fraud, the reverse charge mechanism set out under Article 199a of Directive 2006/112/EC ought to apply only for a limited period of time.

(9)

In order to ensure that the reverse charge mechanism can be applied for a sufficiently long time so as to be effective and to allow for a subsequent evaluation, it is necessary that the current time-limit of 30 June 2015 is extended. In the same way, the date for the evaluation period and the end date for the period, during which a shift in fraudulent activities has to be reported, should be postponed.

(10)

In order to provide all Member States with the option of applying the reverse charge mechanism as set out above, a specific amendment to Directive 2006/112/EC is necessary.

(11)

Since the objective of the proposed action, namely to address VAT fraud through temporary measures which derogate from existing Union rules, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(12)

Directive 2006/112/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

In Article 193 the reference to "Articles 194 to 199" is replaced by the reference to "Articles 194 to 199b";

(2)

Article 199a is amended as follows:

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/7

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/8

(1)

It is incumbent upon the Council to establish the total allowable catches (TAC) by fishery or group of fisheries. Fishing opportunities should be distributed among Member States in such a way as to ensure the relative stability of each Member State's fishing activities for all stocks or groups of stocks and having due regard to the objectives of the common fisheries policy established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1).

(2)

For the purposes of suitable stock management and simplification, it is appropriate that the TAC and Member State quotas for the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay (ICES subarea VIII) be set for an annual management season running from 1 July to 30 June of the following year, rather than for a calendar year management period. Nevertheless, the fishery should remain subject to the general provisions of Council Regulation (EU) No 39/2013 (2) concerning the conditions for the use of quotas.

(3)

The Bay of Biscay anchovy TAC for the 2013/14 fishing season should be established on the basis of scientific advice available, taking into account biological and socioeconomic aspects and ensuring fair treatment between fishing sectors.

(4)

In order to provide for a multiannual management of the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay, on 29 July 2009, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation establishing a long-term plan for the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock. Considering that the impact assessment on which the proposal is based provided for the most recent assessment of the impact of management decisions for the stock, it is appropriate to fix a TAC for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay accordingly. The advice issued by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in July 2013 estimated the spawning stock biomass to be approximately 56 055 tonnes. In view of the most recent assessment available of the impact of management decisions for the stock, the TAC for the fishing season running from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 should be established at 17 100 tonnes.

(5)

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 (3), it is necessary to establish to what extent the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay is subject to the measures laid down in that Regulation.

(6)

In view of the start of the 2013/14 fishing season and for the purpose of the annual reporting of catches, this Regulation should enter into force as soon as possible after its publication and should apply from 1 July 2013,

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/10

(1)

On 10 December 2012, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1169/2012 (2) implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001, establishing an updated list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies.

(2)

The Council has provided all the persons, groups and entities for which it was practically possible with statements of reasons explaining why they were listed in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1169/2012.

(3)

By way of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Council informed the persons, groups and entities listed in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1169/2012 that it had decided to keep them on the list. The Council also informed the persons, groups and entities concerned that it was possible to request a statement of the Council's reasons for putting them on the list where one had not already been communicated to them.

(4)

The Council has carried out a complete review of the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies, as required by Article 2(3) of that Regulation. When doing so it took account of observations submitted to the Council by those concerned.

(5)

The Council has concluded that the persons, groups and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation have been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (3), that a decision has been taken with respect to them by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that Common Position, and that they should continue to be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001.

(6)

The Council has further determined that an additional group has been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Article 1(2) and (3) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, that a decision has been taken with respect to that group by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that Common Position, and that it should be added to the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply. The decision to designate the group does not affect legitimate financial transfers to Lebanon and the delivery of assistance, including humanitarian assistance, from the European Union and its Member States in Lebanon.

(7)

The list of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 applies should be updated accordingly, and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1169/2012 should be repealed,

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/14

(1)

It results from an evaluation of several waste streams that recycling markets for copper scrap would benefit from the development of specific criteria determining when copper scrap obtained from waste ceases to be waste. Those criteria should ensure a high level of environmental protection. They should be without prejudice to the classification of recovered copper scrap as waste by third countries.

(2)

Reports of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have shown that a market and demand exist for copper scrap to be used as feedstock in the non-ferrous metal producing industry. Copper scrap should therefore be sufficiently pure and meet the relevant standards or specifications required by the non-ferrous metal producing industry.

(3)

The criteria determining when copper scrap ceases to be waste should ensure that copper scrap resulting from a recovery operation meets the technical requirements of the non-ferrous metal producing industry, comply with existing legislation and standards applicable to products and do not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts. Reports of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission have shown that the proposed criteria on the waste used as input in the recovery operation, on the treatment processes and techniques, as well as on the copper scrap resulting from the recovery operation fulfil those objectives as they should result in the generation of copper scrap devoid of hazardous properties and sufficiently free of metals other than copper and non-metallic compounds.

(4)

In order to ensure compliance with the criteria, it is appropriate to provide that information on copper scrap which has ceased to be waste is issued and that a management system is implemented.

(5)

A review of the criteria may prove necessary if, on the basis of a monitoring for the development of market conditions for copper scrap, adverse effects on recycling markets for copper scrap are noted, in particular with regard to the availability of, and access to, such scrap.

(6)

In order to allow operators to adapt to the criteria determining when copper scrap ceases to be waste, it is appropriate to provide for a reasonable period to elapse before this Regulation applies.

(7)

The Committee established by Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC has not delivered an opinion on the measures provided for in this Regulation and the Commission therefore submitted a proposal relating to the measures to be taken to the Council and forwarded it to the European Parliament. The Council did not act within the 2-month period provided for by Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (2), and the Commission therefore submitted the proposal to the European Parliament without delay. The European Parliament did not oppose the measure within 4 months from the abovementioned forwarding,

(1)

‘copper scrap’ means scrap metal which consists mainly of copper and copper alloys;

(2)

‘holder’ means the natural or legal person who is in possession of copper scrap;

(3)

‘producer’ means the holder who transfers copper scrap to another holder for the first time as copper scrap which has ceased to be waste;

(4)

‘importer’ means any natural or legal person established within the Union who introduces copper scrap which has ceased to be waste into the customs territory of the Union;

(5)

‘qualified staff’ means staff which is qualified by experience or training to monitor and assess the properties of copper scrap;

(6)

‘visual inspection’ means inspection of copper scrap covering all parts of a consignment and using human senses or any non-specialised equipment;

(7)

‘consignment’ means a batch of copper scrap which is intended for delivery from a producer to another holder and may be contained in either one or several transport units, such as containers.

(1)

the copper scrap resulting from the recovery operation complies with the criteria set out in Section 1 of Annex I;

(2)

the waste used as input for the recovery operation complies with the criteria set out in Section 2 of Annex I;

(3)

the waste used as input for the recovery operation has been treated in accordance with the criteria set out in Section 3 of Annex I;

(4)

the producer has satisfied the requirements set out in Articles 4 and 5.

(a)

monitoring of the quality of copper scrap resulting from the recovery operation as set out in Section 1 of Annex I (including sampling and analysis);

(b)

effectiveness of radiation monitoring as set out in Section 1.5 of Annex I;

(c)

acceptance control of waste used as input for the recovery operation as set out in Section 2 of Annex I;

(d)

monitoring of the treatment processes and techniques described in Section 3.3 of Annex I;

(e)

feedback from customers concerning compliance with copper scrap quality;

(f)

record keeping of the results of monitoring conducted under points (a) to (d);

(g)

review and improvement of the management system;

(h)

training of staff.

(a)

* NACE Code 38 (Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; material recovery); or

(b)

* NACE Code 24 (Manufacture of basic metals) especially including the sub-code 24.44 (Copper production).

(a)

an accreditation body successfully peer evaluated for this activity by the body recognised in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008;

(b)

an environmental verifier which is accredited or licensed by an accreditation or licensing body according to Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 which is also subject to peer evaluation according to Article 31 of that Regulation.

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/21

(1)

In order to clarify certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and to ensure their uniform implementation in the Member States, detailed rules should be adopted, in particular as regards the use of compound terms, allusions, sales denominations and geographical indications for the presentation of spirit drinks.

(2)

According to Article 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, a spirit drink or another foodstuff may, under certain conditions, bear in its presentation a compound term which includes the name of one of the categories listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 or one of the geographical indications listed in Annex III to that Regulation or may bear one or more allusions that include one or more of those categories or geographical indications. In order to ensure the uniform use of compound terms and allusions in Member States, it is necessary to establish detailed rules of their usage for the presentation of spirit drinks and other foodstuffs.

(3)

When reference is made to a certain spirit drink in the presentation of a foodstuff, that spirit drink must fully comply with Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and not be diluted. It is necessary to clarify the meaning of the term ‘dilution’ when referred to spirit drinks, since certain manufacturing processes should not be considered as dilution.

(4)

To ensure that the conditions for the registration of geographical indications laid down in Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 are met, applications for registration should be examined by the Commission and detailed implementing rules on the application, examination, objection and cancellation procedures for geographical indications of spirit drinks should be established. To ensure a uniform implementation of those rules, models should be drawn up for the application for registration, the technical file, statement of objection, amendment of the technical file and cancellation of a geographical indication.

(5)

In order to facilitate communication between the Commission and Member States and third countries in relation to registered geographical indications, Member States and third countries should communicate to the Commission the main specifications of the technical files of their geographical indications, besides the complete technical files.

(6)

Restrictions concerning the packaging of a spirit drink with a geographical indication, such as the obligation to package the spirit drink in a defined geographical area, constitute restrictions to the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services. Such restrictions should only be allowed if they are necessary, proportionate and suitable to protect the reputation of the geographical indication.

(7)

A Union symbol for geographical indications of spirit drinks should be established in order to enable the consumer to identify certain spirit drinks the characteristics of which are linked to the origin of the drinks.

(8)

Considering the time needed by the Member States to implement the measures related to the use of compound terms and allusions, the application of those measures should be deferred.

(9)

The measures established in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Spirit Drinks,

(a)

the use of compound terms and allusions as referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 in the description, presentation and labelling of a foodstuff;

(b)

the geographical indications of the spirit drinks referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 and the use of a Union symbol for the geographical indications of spirit drinks.

(a)

‘spirit drink category’ means one of the categories 1 to 46 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008;

(b)

‘geographical indication’ means one of the geographical indications registered in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008;

(c)

‘compound term’ means the combination of a term listed in categories 1 to 46 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 or a geographical indication of a spirit drink, from which all the alcohol of the final product originates, with:

(d)

‘allusion’ means the direct or indirect reference to one or more spirit drink categories or geographical indications, other than the reference in a compound term or list of ingredients referred to in Article 9(9) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008.

(a)

the application form, according to the model set out in Annex I to this Regulation;

(b)

the technical file, according to the model set out in Annex II to this Regulation;

(c)

the main specifications of the technical file referred to in point (b).

(a)

the proof of protection in the third countries concerned; and

(b)

a document from each of the other third countries concerned authorising the third country submitting the application to act on its behalf.

(a)

the proof of protection in the third countries concerned; and

(b)

a document from each of the Member States or third countries concerned authorising the party forwarding the application to act on its behalf.

(a)

the file number;

(b)

the name to be registered;

(c)

the number of pages received;

(d)

the date of receipt of the application.

(a)

the file number;

(b)

the number of pages received;

(c)

the date of receipt of the objection.

(a)

the file number;

(b)

the number of pages received; and

(c)

the date of receipt of the request.

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/31

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive (2) provides that consignments of animal by-products and derived products for importation into or transit through the Union are to be accompanied by health certificates in accordance with the models set out in Annex XV thereto.

(2)

Certain model certificates set out in Annex XV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 provide that the official veterinerian is to certify compliance with animal welfare rules laid down in Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing (3).

(3)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (4) repealed and replaced Directive 93/119/EC. Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 applies from 1 January 2013.

(4)

For reasons of clarity the animal welfare statements in the model of health certificates Chapter 3(D), II.1.3 (b)(iv) in Chapter 3(F) and II.2.2(b)(iv) in Chapter 8 of Annex XV to Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 should be updated.

(5)

To avoid any disruption of trade, the use of certificates issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 prior to the entry into force of this Regulation should be authorised for a transitional period.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and neither the European Parliament nor the Council have opposed them,

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/49

(1)

Following the Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) of 26 September 2002 (2) and in order to ensure that consumers receive adequate information when purchasing foods and food ingredients with added phytosterols, phytosterol esters, phytostanols and phytostanol esters, Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 of 31 March 2004 concerning the labelling of foods and food ingredients with added phytosterols, phytosterol esters, phytostanols and/or phytostanol esters (3) provides for mandatory particulars in addition to those listed in Article 3 of Directive 2000/13/EC on the labelling of such foods.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 provides that the labelling of such foods and food ingredients shall contain, amongst others, a statement that the product is intended exclusively for people who want to lower their blood cholesterol level. The purpose of this mandatory statement is to ensure that the product reaches its target group, and thus avoid unnecessary consumption by non-targeted groups.

(3)

The voluntary inclusion of nutrition or health claims on food labels is governed by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (4). Accordingly, Commission Regulation (EC) No 983/2009 of 21 October 2009 on the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on food and referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (5), Commission Regulation (EU) No 384/2010 of 5 May 2010 on the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (6) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (7) have authorised health claims relating to the reduction and maintenance of blood cholesterol with respect to foods containing plant sterols and plant stanols, subject to certain conditions of use.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 983/2009 authorised, under certain conditions of use, the following health claims: ‘Plant sterols have been shown to lower/reduce blood cholesterol. High cholesterol is a risk factor in the development of coronary heart disease’ and ‘Plant stanol esters have been shown to lower/reduce blood cholesterol. High cholesterol is a risk factor in the development of coronary heart disease’.

(5)

Regulation (EU) No 384/2010 authorised, under certain conditions of use, the following health claim: ‘Plant sterols and plant stanol esters have been shown to lower/reduce blood cholesterol. High cholesterol is a risk factor in the development of coronary heart disease.’

(6)

Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 authorised, under certain conditions of use, the following health claim: ‘Plant sterols/stanols contribute to the maintenance of normal blood cholesterol levels’.

(7)

The wording of the authorised health claims in combination with the mandatory statement relating to the target group laid down in Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 could potentially lead consumers who do not need to control their blood cholesterol level to use the product. Therefore, with a view to ensure consistency of the information provided on the labelling of foods and food ingredients with added phytosterols, phytosterol esters, phytostanols and/or phytostanol esters, it is appropriate to amend the mandatory statement laid down in Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 while ensuring that its wording serves adequately the informative purpose for which it was initially introduced.

(8)

In order to enable food business operators to adapt the labelling of their products to the requirements introduced by this Regulation, it is important to provide for an appropriate transition period for the application of this Regulation.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,

‘3.

there shall be a statement that the product is not intended for people who do not need to control their blood cholesterol level.’

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/51

(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,

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/53

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 opened and provided for the administration of certain import tariff quotas for rice and broken rice, broken down by country of origin and split into several subperiods in accordance with Annex I to that Implementing Regulation.

(2)

July is the third subperiod for the quota provided for under Article 1(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 and the second subperiod for the quotas provided for under Article 1(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that Implementing Regulation.

(3)

The notifications sent in accordance with point (a) of Article 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 show that, for the quotas with order number 09.4154 — 09.4166, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of July 2013 under Article 4(1) of that Implementing Regulation cover a quantity greater than that available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by fixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantity requested under the quotas concerned.

(4)

Those notifications also show that, for the quotas with order number 09.4127 — 09.4128 — 09.4129 — 09.4148 — 09.4149 — 09.4150 — 09.4152 — 09.4153, the applications lodged in the first 10 working days of July 2013 under Article 4(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011 cover a quantity less than that available.

(5)

The total quantity available for the following subperiod should also be fixed for the quotas with order number 09.4127 — 09.4128 — 09.4129 — 09.4130 — 09.4148 — 09.4112 — 09.4116 — 09.4117 — 09.4118 — 09.4119 — 09.4166, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1273/2011.

(6)

In order to ensure sound management of the procedure of issuing import licences, this Regulation should enter into force immediately after its publication,

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/57

(1)

On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).

(2)

On 10 December 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/765/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2).

(3)

In accordance with Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, it is necessary to carry out a complete review of the list of persons, groups and entities to which Decision 2012/765/CFSP applies.

(4)

This Decision sets out the result of the review that the Council has carried out in respect of the persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.

(5)

The Council has concluded that the persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply have been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Article 1(2) and (3) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, that a decision has been taken with respect to them by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that Common Position, and that they should continue to be subject to the specific restrictive measures provided for therein.

(6)

The Council has further determined that an additional group has been involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of Article 1(2) and (3) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, that a decision has been taken with respect to that group by a competent authority within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that Common Position, and that it should be added to the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply. The decision to designate the group does not affect legitimate financial transfers to Lebanon and the delivery of assistance, including humanitarian assistance, from the European Union and its Member States in Lebanon.

(7)

The list of the persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply should be updated accordingly, and Decision 2012/765/CFSP should be repealed,

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/60

(1)

The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, inter alia, by facilitating access to justice, as well as the objective of ensuring a high level of consumer protection.

(2)

The modern economy sometimes creates situations in which a large number of persons can be harmed by the same illegal practices relating to the violation of rights granted under Union law by one or more traders or other persons (‘mass harm situation’). They may therefore have cause to seek the cessation of such practices or to claim damages.

(3)

The Commission adopted a Green Paper on antitrust damages actions in 2005 (1) and a White Paper in 2008, which included policy suggestions on antitrust-specific collective redress (2). In 2008 the Commission published a Green Paper on consumer collective redress (3). In 2011 the Commission carried out a public consultation ‘Towards a more coherent European approach to collective redress’ (4).

(4)

On 2 February 2012 the European Parliament adopted the resolution ‘Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’, in which it called for any proposal in the field of collective redress to take the form of a horizontal framework including a common set of principles providing uniform access to justice via collective redress within the Union and specifically but not exclusively dealing with the infringement of consumer rights. The Parliament also stressed the need to take due account of the legal traditions and legal orders of the individual Member States and enhance the coordination of good practices between Member States (5).

(5)

On 11 June 2013 the Commission issued a Communication ‘Towards a European Horizontal Framework for Collective Redress’ (6), which took stock of the actions to date and the opinions of stakeholders and of the European Parliament, and presented the Commission’s position on some central issues regarding collective redress.

(6)

It is a core task of public enforcement to prevent and punish the violations of rights granted under Union law. The possibility for private persons to pursue claims based on violations of such rights supplements public enforcement. Where this Recommendation refers to the violation of rights granted under Union Law, it covers all the situations where the breach of rules established at Union level has caused or is likely to cause prejudice to natural and legal persons.

(7)

Amongst those areas where the supplementary private enforcement of rights granted under Union law in the form of collective redress is of value, are consumer protection, competition, environment protection, protection of personal data, financial services legislation and investor protection. The principles set out in this Recommendation should be applied horizontally and equally in those areas but also in any other areas where collective claims for injunctions or damages in respect of violations of the rights granted under Union law would be relevant.

(8)

Individual actions, such as the small claims procedure for consumer cases, are the usual tools to address disputes to prevent harm and also to claim for compensation.

(9)

In addition to individual redress, different types of collective redress mechanisms have been introduced by all Member States. These measures are intended to prevent and stop unlawful practices as well as to ensure that compensation can be obtained for the detriment caused in mass harm situations. The possibility of joining claims and pursuing them collectively may constitute a better means of access to justice, in particular when the cost of individual actions would deter the harmed individuals from going to court.

(10)

The aim of this Recommendation is to facilitate access to justice in relation to violations of rights under Union law and to that end to recommend that all Member States should have collective redress systems at national level that follow the same basic principles throughout the Union, taking into account the legal traditions of the Member States and safeguarding against abuse.

(11)

In the area of injunctive relief, the European Parliament and the Council have already adopted Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (7). The injunction procedure introduced by the Directive does not, however, enable those who claim to have suffered detriment as a result of an illicit practice to obtain compensation.

(12)

Procedures to bring collective claims for compensatory relief have been introduced in some Member States, and to differing extents. However, the existing procedures for bringing claims for collective redress vary widely between the Member States.

(13)

This Recommendation puts forward a set of principles relating both to judicial and out-of-court collective redress that should be common across the Union, while respecting the different legal traditions of the Member States. These principles should ensure that fundamental procedural rights of the parties are preserved and should prevent abuse through appropriate safeguards.

(14)

This Recommendation addresses both compensatory and — as far as appropriate and pertinent to the particular principles — injunctive collective redress. It is without prejudice to the existing sectorial mechanisms of injunctive relief provided for by Union law.

(15)

Collective redress mechanisms should preserve procedural safeguards and guarantees of parties to civil actions. In order to avoid the development of an abusive litigation culture in mass harm situations, the national collective redress mechanisms should contain the fundamental safeguards identified in this Recommendation. Elements such as punitive damages, intrusive pre-trial discovery procedures and jury awards, most of which are foreign to the legal traditions of most Member States, should be avoided as a general rule.

(16)

Alternative dispute resolution procedures can be an efficient way of obtaining redress in mass harm situations. They should always be available alongside, or as a voluntary element of, judicial collective redress.

(17)

Legal standing to bring a collective action in the Member States depends on the type of collective redress mechanism. In certain types of collective actions, such as group actions where the action can be brought jointly by those who claim to have suffered harm, the issue of standing is more straightforward than in the context of representative actions, where accordingly the issue of legal standing should be clarified.

(18)

In the case of a representative action, the legal standing to bring the representative action should be limited to ad hoc certified entities, designated representative entities that fulfil certain criteria set by law or to public authorities. The representative entity should be required to prove the administrative and financial capacity to be able to represent the interest of claimants in an appropriate manner.

(19)

The availability of funding for collective redress litigation should be arranged in such a way that it cannot lead to an abuse of the system or a conflict of interest.

(20)

In order to avoid an abuse of the system and in the interest of the sound administration of justice, no judicial collective redress action should be permitted to proceed unless admissibility conditions set out by law are met.

(21)

A key role should be given to courts in protecting the rights and interests of all the parties involved in collective redress actions as well as in managing the collective redress actions effectively.

(22)

In fields of law where a public authority is empowered to adopt a decision finding that there has been a violation of Union law, it is important to ensure consistency between the final decision concerning that violation and the outcome of the collective redress action. Moreover, in the case of collective actions following a decision by a public authority (follow-on actions), the public interest and the need to avoid abuse can be presumed to have been taken into account already by the public authority as regards the finding of a violation of Union law.

(23)

With regard to environmental law, this Recommendation takes account of the provisions of Article 9(3), (4) and (5) of the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’) which, respectively, encourage wide access to justice in environmental matters, set out criteria that procedures should respect, including criteria that they be timely and not prohibitively expensive, and address information to the public and the consideration of assistance mechanisms.

(24)

The Member States should take the necessary measures to implement the principles set out in this Recommendation at the latest two years after its publication.

(25)

The Member States should report to the Commission on the implementation of this Recommendation. Based on this reporting, the Commission should monitor and assess the measures taken by Member States.

(26)

Within four years after publication of this Recommendation, the Commission should assess if any further action, including legislative measures, is needed, in order to ensure that the objectives of this Recommendation are fully met. The Commission should in particular assess the implementation of this Recommendation and its impact on access to justice, on the right to obtain compensation, on the need prevent abusive litigation and on the functioning of the single market, the economy of the European Union and consumer trust,

1.

The purpose of this Recommendation is to facilitate access to justice, stop illegal practices and enable injured parties to obtain compensation in mass harm situations caused by violations of rights granted under Union law, while ensuring appropriate procedural safeguards to avoid abusive litigation.

2.

All Member States should have collective redress mechanisms at national level for both injunctive and compensatory relief, which respect the basic principles set out in this Recommendation. These principles should be common across the Union, while respecting the different legal traditions of the Member States. Member States should ensure that the collective redress procedures are fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

3.

For the purposes of this Recommendation:

This Recommendation identifies common principles which should apply in all instances of collective redress, and also those specific either to injunctive or to compensatory collective redress.

4.

The Member States should designate representative entities to bring representative actions on the basis of clearly defined conditions of eligibility. These conditions should include at least the following requirements:

5.

The Member States should ensure that the designated entity will lose its status if one or more of the conditions are no longer met.

6.

The Member States should ensure that representative actions can only be brought by entities which have been officially designated in advance as recommended in point 4 or by entities which have been certified on an ad hoc basis by a Member State’s national authorities or courts for a particular representative action.

7.

In addition, or as an alternative, the Member States should empower public authorities to bring representative actions.

8.

The Member States should provide for verification at the earliest possible stage of litigation that cases in which conditions for collective actions are not met, and manifestly unfounded cases, are not continued.

9.

To this end, the courts should carry out the necessary examination of their own motion.

10.

The Member States should ensure that it is possible for the representative entity or for the group of claimants to disseminate information about a claimed violation of rights granted under Union law and their intention to seek an injunction to stop it as well as about a mass harm situation and their intention to pursue an action for damages in the form of collective redress. The same possibilities for the representative entity, ad hoc certified entity, a public authority or for the group of claimants should be ensured as regards the information on the ongoing compensatory actions.

11.

The dissemination methods should take into account the particular circumstances of the mass harm situation concerned, the freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to protection of the reputation or the company value of a defendant before its responsibility for the alleged violation or harm is established by the final judgement of the court.

12.

The dissemination methods are without prejudice to the Union rules on insider dealing and market manipulation.

13.

The Member States should ensure that the party that loses a collective redress action reimburses necessary legal costs borne by the winning party (‘loser pays principle’), subject to the conditions provided for in the relevant national law.

14.

The claimant party should be required to declare to the court at the outset of the proceedings the origin of the funds that it is going to use to support the legal action.

15.

The court should be allowed to stay the proceedings if in the case of use of financial resources provided by a third party:

16.

The Member States should ensure, that in cases where an action for collective redress is funded by a private third party, it is prohibited for the private third party:

17.

The Member States should ensure that where a dispute concerns natural or legal persons from several Member States, a single collective action in a single forum is not prevented by national rules on admissibility or standing of the foreign groups of claimants or the representative entities originating from other national legal systems.

18.

Any representative entity that has been officially designated in advance by a Member State to have standing to bring representative actions should be permitted to seize the court in the Member State having jurisdiction to consider the mass harm situation.

19.

The courts and the competent public authorities should treat claims for injunctive orders requiring cessation of or prohibiting a violation of rights granted under Union law with all due expediency, where appropriate by way of summary proceedings, in order to prevent any or further harm causing damage because of such violation.

20.

The Member States should establish appropriate sanctions against the losing defendant with a view to ensuring the effective compliance with the injunctive order, including the payments of a fixed amount for each day’s delay or any other amount provided for in national legislation.

21.

The claimant party should be formed on the basis of express consent of the natural or legal persons claiming to have been harmed (‘opt-in’ principle). Any exception to this principle, by law or by court order, should be duly justified by reasons of sound administration of justice.

22.

A member of the claimant party should be free to leave the claimant party at any time before the final judgement is given or the case is otherwise validly settled, subject to the same conditions that apply to withdrawal in individual actions, without being deprived of the possibility to pursue its claims in another form, if this does not undermine the sound administration of justice.

23.

Natural or legal persons claiming to have been harmed in the same mass harm situation should be able to join the claimant party at any time before the judgement is given or the case is otherwise validly settled, if this does not undermine the sound administration of justice.

24.

The defendant should be informed about the composition of the claimant party and about any changes therein.

25.

The Member States should ensure that the parties to a dispute in a mass harm situation are encouraged to settle the dispute about compensation consensually or out-of-court, both at the pre-trial stage and during civil trial, taking also into account the requirements of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (8).

26.

The Member States should ensure that judicial collective redress mechanisms are accompanied by appropriate means of collective alternative dispute resolution available to the parties before and throughout the litigation. Use of such means should depend on the consent of the parties involved in the case.

27.

Any limitation period applicable to the claims should be suspended during the period from the moment the parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute by means of an alternative dispute resolution procedure until at least the moment at which one or both parties expressly withdraw from that alternative dispute resolution procedure.

28.

The legality of the binding outcome of a collective settlement should be verified by the courts taking into consideration the appropriate protection of interests and rights of all parties involved.

29.

The Member States should ensure that the lawyers’ remuneration and the method by which it is calculated do not create any incentive to litigation that is unnecessary from the point of view of the interest of any of the parties.

30.

The Member States should not permit contingency fees which risk creating such an incentive. The Member States that exceptionally allow for contingency fees should provide for appropriate national regulation of those fees in collective redress cases, taking into account in particular the right to full compensation of the members of the claimant party.

31.

The compensation awarded to natural or legal persons harmed in a mass harm situation should not exceed the compensation that would have been awarded, if the claim had been pursued by means of individual actions. In particular, punitive damages, leading to overcompensation in favour of the claimant party of the damage suffered, should be prohibited.

32.

The Member States should ensure, that, in addition to the general principles of funding, for cases of private third party funding of compensatory collective redress, it is prohibited to base remuneration given to or interest charged by the fund provider on the amount of the settlement reached or the compensation awarded unless that funding arrangement is regulated by a public authority to ensure the interests of the parties.

33.

The Member States should ensure that in fields of law where a public authority is empowered to adopt a decision finding that there has been a violation of Union law, collective redress actions should, as a general rule, only start after any proceedings of the public authority, which were launched before commencement of the private action, have been concluded definitively. If the proceedings of the public authority are launched after the commencement of the collective redress action, the court should avoid giving a decision which would conflict with a decision contemplated by the public authority. To that end, the court may stay the collective redress action until the proceedings of the public authority have been concluded.

34.

The Member States should ensure that in the case of follow-on actions, the persons who claim to have been harmed are not prevented from seeking compensation due to the expiry of limitation or prescription periods before the definitive conclusion of the proceedings by the public authority.

35.

The Member States should establish a national registry of collective redress actions.

36.

The national registry should be available free of charge to any interested person through electronic means and otherwise. Websites publishing the registries should provide access to comprehensive and objective information on the available methods of obtaining compensation, including out of court methods.

37.

The Member States, assisted by the Commission should endeavour to ensure coherence of the information gathered in the registries and their interoperability.

38.

The Member States should implement the principles set out in this Recommendation in national collective redress systems by 26 July 2015 at the latest.

39.

The Member States should collect reliable annual statistics on the number of out-of-court and judicial collective redress procedures and information about the parties, the subject matter and outcome of the cases.

40.

The Member States should communicate the information collected in accordance with point 39 to the Commission on an annual basis and for the first time by 26 July 2016 at the latest.

41.

The Commission should assess the implementation of the Recommendation on the basis of practical experience by 26 July 2017 at the latest. In this context, the Commission should in particular evaluate its impact on access to justice, on the right to obtain compensation, on the need to prevent abusive litigation and on the functioning of the single market, on SMEs, the competitiveness of the economy of the European Union and consumer trust. The Commission should assess also whether further measures to consolidate and strengthen the horizontal approach reflected in the Recommendation should be proposed.

42.

The Recommendation should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

26.7.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/66

(1)

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in respect of trade in live animals and animal products (hereafter ‘the Agreement’) provides for the possibility of recognising equivalence for sanitary measures after the exporting Party has objectively demonstrated that its measures achieve the importing Party’s appropriate level of protection. The Agreement was approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 1999/201/EC.

(2)

The determination of equivalence was carried out and concluded with Canada for equivalence on public health measures concerning fishery products. Equivalence has been concluded on a reciprocal basis.

(3)

The Joint Management Committee established under the Agreement (‘the Joint Management Committee’), at its meeting on 5 and 6 October 2006, issued a recommendation concerning the determination of equivalence on hygiene rules for fishery products. This was complemented by a specific recommendation concerning equivalence on microbiological criteria for fishery products at the meeting of the Joint Management Committee on 3 and 4 October 2007.

(4)

The Joint Management Committee, at its meeting on 5 and 6 October 2006, issued a recommendation concerning the establishment of rules for imports into the Community for fish caught under the authority of a recreational fishing licence from Canada. The Joint Management Committee, at its meeting on 5 and 6 October 2006, issued a recommendation as regards fresh meat to update the legal basis of the EU and Canadian standards.

(5)

The Joint Management Committee, at its meeting on 5 and 6 October 2006, issued a recommendation as regards minced meat and to update the legal basis of the EU standards.

(6)

The Joint Management Committee, at its meeting on 3 and 4 October 2007, issued a recommendation concerning the determination of equivalence for poultry post-mortem requirements on poultry meat.

(7)

The Joint Management Committee, at its meeting on 27 and 28 April 2005, issued a recommendation providing for the possibility of imports from Canada of live bivalve molluscs for wet storage, relaying or depuration in the Community other than market size live bivalve molluscs, in line with Community legislation.

(8)

As a result of those recommendations it is appropriate to modify the relevant parts in Annex V to the Agreement.

(9)

Pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Agreement amendments to the Annexes are to be agreed upon by an exchange of notes between the Parties.

(10)

Accordingly, the recommended modifications to Annex V to the Agreement should be approved on behalf of the Community.

(11)

Commission Decision C(2008) 2633 of 19 June 2008, which was not published in the Official Journal of the European Union, made certain amendments to the Annex V to the Agreement.

(12)

It is necessary to make certain adaptations of a diplomatic nature to the text of the letters set out in the Annex to Decision C(2008) 2633. In the interests of clarity, that Decision should be annulled and replaced by the present Decision.

(13)

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