(1)

In its conclusions of 24 February 2022, the European Council condemned Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine as well as the involvement of Belarus in that aggression. As a result of the aggression, the Commission has suspended the financing agreements for cooperation programmes between the Union and Russia or Belarus respectively, and, where relevant, the Member State hosting the managing authority of the programme concerned. Since the start of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, the Union has imposed a series of new sanctions against Russia and Belarus.

(2)

The Russian military aggression has disrupted the implementation of thirteen cross-border cooperation programmes supported by the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) established by Regulation (EU) No 232/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) between nine Member States hosting a programme’s managing authority and Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Russia and Belarus.

(3)

The fraudulent nature of the August 2020 presidential elections in Belarus and the violent crackdown on peaceful protests already led to the recalibration of the Union’s assistance to Belarus following the Council Conclusions of 12 October 2020.

(4)

As a result of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine, the Union and its eastern regions in particular, as well as the western parts of Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova are facing a substantial inflow of displaced persons. That inflow poses an additional challenge to the Member States and other countries bordering Ukraine, which could spread further to other Member States, especially at a time when their economies are still recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

(5)

Moreover, two transnational cooperation programmes supported by the ENI and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), namely the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme with the participation of Russia, and the Danube Transnational Programme with the participation of Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, were considerably disrupted by the Russian military aggression against Ukraine or, with regard to the Republic of Moldova, by the flows of displaced persons from Ukraine resulting directly from that aggression.

(6)

Since the notifications of the suspension of the financing agreements for cooperation programmes with Russia and Belarus, any programme and project implementation with those countries is suspended. It is necessary to lay down specific rules on the continued implementation of the cooperation programmes supported by the ENI and the ERDF, even in the event of a termination of the respective financing agreement.

(7)

The implementation of cooperation programmes supported by the ENI is governed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 897/2014 (4). However, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 897/2014 cannot be amended as necessary, because its legal basis, Regulation (EU) No 232/2014 is no longer in force since 31 December 2020. Consequently, it is necessary to lay down specific provisions with regard to the continued implementation of the cooperation programmes concerned in a separate legal instrument.

(8)

The financing agreements for cooperation programmes with Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova are not suspended. However, the implementation of those programmes is considerably impacted by Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine and a substantial flow of displaced persons from Ukraine towards the Republic of Moldova. In order to address the challenges for programme partners, programme authorities and project partners, it is necessary to lay down specific rules on the continued implementation of the cooperation programmes concerned.

(9)

With a view to alleviating the burden on public budgets arising from the need to respond to Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine and to a substantial flow of displaced persons from Ukraine, the co-financing rule laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 897/2014 should not apply for the Union contribution.

(10)

The modification of the co-financing rate should only require a notification of revised financial tables to the Commission and other procedural arrangements. It is necessary that the rules on adjustments and revisions of programmes be simplified for the programmes directly affected by the military aggression against Ukraine or by a substantial flow of displaced persons from Ukraine. Any potential consequential adjustments, including to the target values of indicators, should be allowed as part of a subsequent programme adjustment after the end of the accounting year.

(11)

Expenditure for projects addressing the migratory challenges as a result of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine should be eligible from the start date of that aggression on 24 February 2022.

(12)

Although the management of projects already selected by the Joint Monitoring Committee is the responsibility of the managing authority, under some programmes certain project amendments are to be approved by the Joint Monitoring Committee. In order to speed up the necessary changes, it is therefore necessary to establish that the responsibility for amending the documents setting out the conditions for support to projects affected by a programme implementation disruption in accordance with the national law of the managing authority lies only with the respective managing authority, without the prior approval of the Joint Monitoring Committee. It should be possible for such amendments to also cover, among others, the replacement of the lead beneficiary or any changes to the financing plan or to the execution deadlines. With regard to new projects, the managing authority should explicitly be allowed to sign contracts other than contracts for large infrastructure projects after 31 December 2022. However, all project activities financed by the programme should end by 31 December 2023.

(13)

The Russian military aggression against Ukraine has caused higher than expected inflation and an unexpected increase in supply and construction prices, which together affect the implementation of large infrastructure projects in the programmes concerned. In order to remedy that situation, the share of the Union contribution allocated to such projects should be allowed to exceed the ceiling set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 897/2014, namely 30 % at the closure of the programme, provided that the excess is only due to an unexpected increase in supply and construction prices.

(14)

Verifications carried out by the managing authority consist of administrative and on-the-spot project verifications. Due to programme implementation disruption, it could no longer be possible to carry out on-the-spot project verifications in Ukraine. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for the possibility to carry out only administrative verifications. In addition, where an infrastructure component of a project was destroyed before verifications could be carried out, it should be possible for the beneficiary to declare the related expenditure for clearance of accounts on the basis of a declaration of honour from the beneficiary stating that the project before its destruction corresponded to the content set out in invoices or documents of equivalent probative value.

(15)

Pursuant to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 897/2014, projects may receive financial contribution if they meet a set of detailed criteria. Due to programme implementation disruption, one or more of those criteria, in particular the requirement that the project has a clear cross-border or transnational cooperation impact, might not be fulfilled at the start of the disruption or at the closure of a given project. Furthermore, the basic condition to involve beneficiaries from at least one of the participating Member States and at least one of the participating partner countries might not be respected anymore. It is therefore necessary to determine whether expenditure can nevertheless be considered as eligible despite the fact that some conditions for financing might no longer be met due to programme implementation disruption.

(16)

As a result of programme implementation disruption, many projects will de facto not have a partner from a partner country. In order to make it possible for the beneficiaries in Member States to finalise their activities, it is appropriate to derogate exceptionally from the obligation for all projects to have at least one beneficiary from a partner country and for all activities to have genuine cross-border or transnational impact and benefits.

(17)

The obligations of a lead beneficiary cover all activities linked to project implementation. As a result of project implementation disruption, lead beneficiaries could be prevented from carrying out their obligations with regard to the partner country. The lead beneficiary’s obligations should therefore be adapted and, where necessary, limited to project implementation with regard to the Member States. Lead beneficiaries should also be allowed to amend the written agreement with the other project partners and to suspend certain activities or the participation of certain partners. Finally, the obligation of lead beneficiaries to transfer payments received from the managing authority to other partners should be waived or at least adapted.

(18)

In order for the affected programmes to address the exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to allow projects addressing the migratory challenges to be selected without a prior call for proposals in exceptional and duly substantiated cases.

(19)

Following the suspension of the financing agreements with partner countries, payments related to the Russian or Belarusian participation have been suspended. Moreover, in Ukraine the extraordinary measures taken by the National Bank and the security situation resulting from the Russian military aggression against it inhibit the transfer of money abroad. It is therefore appropriate to allow for direct payment of the grants from the managing authority to the project beneficiaries in Member States and in partner countries whose financing agreements are not suspended.

(20)

Cooperation programmes supported by the ENI are required to set out the method of converting expenditure incurred in a currency other than the euro. That method is to apply throughout the programme duration. Due to the financial and economic consequences of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine, there are unexpected fluctuations of exchange rates. It is therefore necessary to provide for the possibility to change that method.

(21)

Due to programme implementation disruption, managing authorities could be unable to receive bank transfers from certain partner countries, resulting in the impossibility to recover debts from project beneficiaries located in such countries. In the case of a partner country which has transferred part of its national contribution to the managing authority, those amounts should be used to off-set such debts. In the case of other partner countries, recovery orders regarding irrecoverable debts should be waived or handled by the Commission.

(22)

In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013, the applicable programme implementation conditions governing the financial management as well as the programming, monitoring, evaluation and control aspects of the participation of third countries, through a contribution of ENI resources to transnational cooperation programmes, are to be established in the relevant cooperation programme and also, where necessary, in the financing agreement between the Commission, the governments of the third countries concerned and the Member State hosting the managing authority of the relevant cooperation programme. Although the applicable programme implementation conditions governing such aspects could be adapted by an adjustment of the cooperation programme, it is necessary to provide for some derogations from certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 in order to allow for the application of the provisions established for the cooperation programmes supported by the ENI also to the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme and the Danube Transnational Programme.

(23)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to establish specific provisions regarding the implementation of the cooperation programmes affected by the Russian military aggression against Ukraine, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the proposed action, 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 (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

(24)

The funding provided in the context of this Regulation is to comply with the conditions and procedures set out by the restrictive measures adopted pursuant to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

(25)

In view of the urgency to address the migratory challenges resulting from the Russian military aggression against Ukraine and the continued public health crisis stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is considered to be appropriate to invoke the exception to the eight-week period referred to in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the TEU, to the TFEU and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

(26)

In order to allow Member States to adjust their programmes in time to benefit from the application of the option of no co-financing to the Union contribution for the accounting year 2021/2022, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

On 21 September 2020, the Council adopted a decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the Union and the Republic of Peru establishing a framework for the latter’s participation in Union crisis management operations.

(2)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union, subsequently negotiated the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Peru establishing a framework for the participation of the Republic of Peru in European Union crisis management operations (‘the Agreement’).

(3)

The Agreement should be approved,

(1)

On 13 November 2017, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2017/2063.

(2)

On 11 November 2021, the Council, considering the ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and the persistent actions undermining democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1965 (2) which renewed the restrictive measures in place until 14 November 2022, including all designations. On the same date, the Council adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1959 (3) which amended the statement of reasons for 26 listed persons.

(3)

The Council has reviewed the restrictive measures in place in accordance with Article 17(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2063. Based on that review, the restrictive measures against all persons in the list set out therein should be maintained, and the statement of reasons for 17 persons should be updated.

(4)

These measures do not affect the general population and can be reversed in light of progress made towards the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Venezuela.

(5)

Annex IV to Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

The substance ‘2,6-Di-Tert-Butyl-4-Methylphenol’ (CAS No 128-37-0), which has been assigned the name Butylated Hydroxytoluene under the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI), is currently not regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. Butylated Hydroxytoluene is a synthetic antioxidant that helps maintain the properties and performance of products when exposed to air and is widely used in cosmetics.

(2)

In light of concerns related to potential endocrine disrupting properties of Butylated Hydroxytoluene, the Commission launched a public call for data in 2019. The industry submitted scientific evidence to demonstrate the safety of Butylated Hydroxytoluene when used in cosmetic products. The Commission requested the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) to carry out a safety assessment of Butylated Hydroxytoluene in view of the information provided.

(3)

The SCCS concluded in its opinion of 2 December 2021 (2) that Butylated Hydroxytoluene is safe as an ingredient up to a maximum concentration of 0,001 % in mouthwash, 0,1 % in toothpaste and 0,8 % in other leave-on and rinse-off products, when those product categories are used individually or together.

(4)

In light of the SCCS opinion, it can be concluded that there is a potential risk to human health arising from the use of Butylated Hydroxytoluene in mouthwash, toothpaste and other leave-on and rinse off products when the concentration of that substance exceeds certain levels. Therefore, the use of Butylated Hydroxytoluene in those products should be restricted to a maximum concentration of 0,001 %, 0,1 % and 0,8 % respectively.

(5)

The substance ‘1H-Indene-1,3(2H)-dione, 2-(2-quinolinyl)-, sulfonated, sodium salts’ (CAS No 8004-92-0), which has been assigned the INCI name Acid Yellow 3, is currently listed under entry 82 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and is therefore allowed for use as a colorant in cosmetic products without any maximum concentration.

(6)

Based on data provided by the industry on the use of Acid Yellow 3 in non-oxidative hair colouring products, the SCCS concluded in its opinion of 23 July 2021 (3) that Acid Yellow 3 is safe when used in such products at on-head concentrations of up to 0,5 %.

(7)

In light of the SCCS opinion, it can be concluded that there is a potential risk to human health arising from the use of Acid Yellow 3 in non-oxidative hair colouring products when the concentration of that substance exceeds a certain level. Therefore, the use of Acid Yellow 3 in those products should be restricted to a maximum concentration of 0,5 %.

(8)

The substance ‘Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexyl ester’ (CAS No 118-56-9), which has been assigned the INCI name Homosalate, is listed under entry 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and is therefore allowed for use as a UV filter in cosmetic products with a maximum concentration of 10 % in ready for use preparation.

(9)

In light of concerns related to potential endocrine disrupting properties of Homosalate, the Commission launched a public call for data in 2019. The industry submitted scientific evidence to demonstrate the safety of Homosalate when used in cosmetic products. The Commission requested the SCCS to carry out a safety assessment of Homosalate in view of the information provided.

(10)

The SCCS concluded in its opinion of 24-25 June 2021 (4) that Homosalate is not safe when used as a UV-filter in cosmetic products at concentrations of up to 10 %. The SCCS found that the use of Homosalate as a UV filter in cosmetic products is safe for the consumer only up to a maximum concentration of 0,5 % in the final product.

(11)

On 30 July 2021, to ensure broad availability of UV-filters and consequently adequate sun protection for consumers, industry submitted a re-calculation of the margin of safety based only on the use of Homosalate in face products (face cream and pump-spray products). On the basis of the information provided by industry, and considering the concerns related to potential endocrine disrupting properties of Homosalate, the SCCS issued scientific advice on 2 December 2021 (5), where it concluded that Homosalate is safe as a UV-filter at concentrations up to 7,34 % when used in face products in the form of cream and pump spray. Therefore, the use of Homosalate should be restricted to face products (non-spray and pump spray products) only, up to a maximum concentration of 7,34 %. The combined use of Homosalate up to 0,5 % in all cosmetic products and up to 7,34 % in face products is not considered safe by the SCCS since the margin of safety of such combined use is below 100.

(12)

In light of the SCCS scientific advice, it can be concluded that there is a potential risk to human health arising from the use of Homosalate as a UV filter in cosmetic products in the concentration currently allowed. Therefore, the use of Homosalate should be restricted to face products (non-spray and pump spray products) only up to a maximum concentration of 7,34 %.

(13)

The substance ‘1,1'-(1,4-piperazinediyl)bis[1-[2-[4-(diethylamino)-2-hydroxybenzoyl]phenyl]-methanone’, which has been assigned the INCI name Bis-(Diethylaminohydroxybenzoyl Benzoyl) Piperazine (HAA299), is a cosmetic ingredient with the reported functions of a UV-filter. HAA299 is currently not regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

(14)

In 2009, the Commission received a dossier from the industry to support the safe use of HAA299 (micronised and non-micronised) in cosmetic products, which was further substantiated with additional information in 2012. SCCS concluded in an opinion of 23 September 2014 (6) that the use of HAA299 in non-nano form (micronised or non-micronised, with median particle size distribution around 134 nm or larger) at a concentration up to 10 % as a UV-filter in cosmetic products does not pose a risk of systemic toxicity in humans. In addition, the SCCS stated that its opinion did not cover the safety evaluation of HAA299 which is composed of nano particles.

(15)

In view of that opinion on the non-nano form of HAA299, the industry submitted in September 2020 additional data and requested an assessment of the safety of HAA299 in nano form intended to be used as a UV-filter up to a maximum concentration of 10 %.

(16)

The SCCS concluded in its opinion of 26 and 27 October 2021 (7) that HAA299 in nano form, as covered within the provided characteristics (minimum purity equal to or above 97 %, median particle size in terms of particle number equal to or above 50 nm), is safe when used as a UV-filter in dermally applied cosmetic products up to a maximum concentration of 10 %. Considering the inflammatory effects on the lung after acute inhalation exposure to products containing HAA299 (nano), the SCCS did not recommend the use of HAA299 (nano) in applications that could lead to exposure of the consumer’s lungs via inhalation.

(17)

The SCCS finally concluded that it had not been provided with any data that would merit a revision of its previous opinion and that HAA299 therefore can be considered safe both in its non-nano and in its nano form, when used as a UV-filter in cosmetic products up to a maximum concentration of 10 %. The SCCS also considers that the combined maximum concentration of non-nano and nano forms of HAA299 should not exceed 10 % in a cosmetic product.

(18)

In light of the SCCS opinion, it can be concluded that there is a potential risk to human health arising from the use of HAA299 as a UV-filter in cosmetic products when the concentration of that substance exceeds a certain level. Therefore, the use of HAA299 in those products should be restricted to a maximum concentration of 10 %. With regard to HAA 299 (nano), a condition should be introduced regarding its use in applications that may lead to exposure of the lungs.

(19)

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 should therefore be amended and corrected accordingly.

(20)

The industry should be allowed reasonable periods of time to adapt to the new requirements, including by making the necessary adjustments to product formulations in order to ensure that only cosmetic products complying with the new requirements are placed on the market. The industry should also be allowed a reasonable period of time to withdraw cosmetic products which do not comply with those requirements. As regards the new restrictions for Homosalate, the reformulation of products containing that UV filter is technically challenging and it is necessary to measure the efficacy of the sun protection factor of the reformulated products. Therefore, longer transition periods should be allowed for the industry to ensure compliance of products containing Homosalate with the new restrictions.

(21)

The substance ‘1,3-benzenediol’ (CAS No 108-46-3), which has been assigned the INCI name Resorcinol, is currently listed under entry 22 of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 as allowed for use in oxidative hair dye products, products intended for colouring eyelashes and hair lotions and shampoos with certain restrictions. With regard to oxidative hair dye products, the label is to contain the following warning: ‘Do not use to dye eyelashes or eyebrows’.

(22)

According to the definition of the term ‘hair product’ in Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, which became applicable on 11 July 2013, a hair product means a cosmetic product that is intended to be applied on the hair of head or face, except eye lashes. The exclusion of eyelashes was motivated by the fact that the level of risk is different when cosmetic products are applied on the hair on the head and on eyelashes respectively.

(23)

Entry 22 in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 was amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1197/2013 (8) to allow professional use of Resorcinol in products intended for colouring eyelashes. At that time, the warning concerning the use for eyebrows should have been deleted, since the use of Resorcinol in products intended for colouring eyebrows, considering the new definition, was allowed as included in the product type ‘oxidative hair dye products’. That error should be corrected.

(24)

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

(1)

Pursuant to Article 300(2) of the Treaty, the Economic and Social Committee is to consist of representatives of organisations of employers, of the employed, and of other parties representative of civil society, notably in socioeconomic, civic, professional and cultural areas.

(2)

On 2 October 2020, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2020/1392 (2), appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025.

(3)

A member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Norbert KLUGE.

(4)

The German Government has proposed Ms Maxi Catharina LEUCHTERS, Referatsleiterin für Unternehmensrecht und Corporate Governance, Institut für Mitbestimmung und Unternehmensführung (I.M.U.) der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung (Head of Unit for Corporate Law and Corporate Governance, Institute for Codetermination and Corporate Governance (I.M.U.) of the Hans-Böckler-Foundation), as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2025,

(1)

As set out in Article 6(1), point (a), of Section 2 of Part A of Annex 31 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (1) (‘the Trade and Cooperation Agreement’), an operator established in the other Party is to submit a posting declaration to the competent authorities of the Party or, in the case of the Union, of the Member State to which the driver is posted, using from 2 February 2022 a multilingual standard form of the public interface connected to the Internal Market Information system (IMI) established by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). A competent authority can be any body established at either national, regional or local level and registered in IMI with specific responsibilities relating to the application of certain legal provisions.

(2)

As set out in Article 6(1), point (c), second subparagraph, of Section 2 of Part A of Annex 31 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, IMI also allows requests to be made for the assistance of the competent authorities of the Party of establishment or, in the case of the Union, the Member State of establishment, if the operator fails to submit the requested documentation within 8 weeks from the date of the request.

(3)

It is possible for third countries to use IMI if the conditions laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 are met, and provided that the third country which is given access to IMI participates in the operating costs of IMI.

(4)

As set out in Article 7(5) of Section 2 of Part A of Annex 31 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the Specialised Committee on Road Transport is to set the technical and procedural specifications of the use of IMI by the United Kingdom. Those specifications are necessary in order to allow the connection of operators and competent authorities to IMI, and thereby allow the operators to submit their posting declarations and competent authorities to take part in the administrative cooperation described in recitals 1 and 2. The Union has implemented those specifications by means of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2179 (3).

(5)

As set out in Article 7(6) of Section 2 of Part A of Annex 31 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, each Party is to participate in the operating costs of IMI. The Specialised Committee on Road Transport is to determine the costs to be borne by each Party. It is therefore necessary to determine the amount and the modalities of the financial contribution to be made by the United Kingdom to the general budget of the Union in respect of the cost generated by its use of IMI. The financial contribution will consist of two parts: annual maintenance costs (annual contribution) and development costs (one-off payment).

(6)

It is therefore appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in the Specialised Committee on Road Transport with regard to the technical and procedural specifications of the use of IMI by the United Kingdom and the amount and modalities of the financial contribution to be made by the United Kingdom to the general budget of the Union in respect of the cost generated by its use of IMI.

(7)

In order to allow for the prompt application of the measures provided for in this Decision, this Decision should enter into force on the date of its adoption,

(1)

The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver (1) (the ‘Agreement’) was signed on and provisionally applied from 28 May 2015 (2), in order to facilitate travel to the Union for citizens of Vanuatu and travel to Vanuatu for citizens of the Union.

(2)

The Agreement is based on the Contracting Parties’ common desire to encourage people-to-people contacts, boost tourism and invigorate business between the Union and Vanuatu.

(3)

Under Article 8(4) of the Agreement, either party may suspend in whole or in part the Agreement, in particular for reasons of public policy and the protection of national security. The decision on suspension is to be notified to the other party no later than two months before its planned entry into force. Should the reasons for that suspension cease to exist, the party that has suspended the Agreement is to inform the other party immediately and to lift the suspension.

(4)

Vanuatu operates investor citizenship schemes, whereby it has granted Vanuatu nationality to nationals of other countries with no previous connection to Vanuatu, issuing positive decisions on the vast majority of applications. On the basis of the information provided by Vanuatu’s Passport Office on 14 June 2021, by March 2021, it issued over 10 500 passports, with an extremely low rejection rate. That situation raises doubts as to the reliability of the security and due diligence screening carried out by the Vanuatu authorities.

(5)

Furthermore, the countries of origin of successful applicants for Vanuatu nationality include several countries whose nationals are required to possess visas when crossing the external borders of the Union.

(6)

In exchanges between the Commission and Vanuatu’s authorities in October 2017, November 2019, June 2020 and March 2021, the Commission expressed serious concerns regarding Vanuatu’s investor citizenship schemes, in particular the granting of citizenship to persons listed in Interpol databases, the absence of physical presence or residence requirements, the schemes’ short processing periods and the lack of systematic exchange of information with applicants’ countries of origin or of previous main residence, and warned the Government of Vanuatu of the possibility of the visa requirement being reinstated should those concerns not be addressed. The explanations provided by Vanuatu were not sufficient to alleviate those concerns.

(7)

Consequently, the application of the Agreement was partially suspended by Council Decision (EU) 2022/366 (3). The suspension is limited to ordinary passports issued by Vanuatu as from 25 May 2015, when the number of successful applicants under Vanuatu’s investor citizenship schemes started to increase significantly.

(8)

Whilst Decision (EU) 2022/366 partially suspended the Agreement, it was also necessary to provide for suspension at the level of Union law. Therefore, based on Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), on 27 April 2022 the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/693 (5) temporary suspending the exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of Vanuatu holding ordinary passports issued by Vanuatu as from 25 May 2015 for a period of nine months, applicable from 4 May 2022 to 3 February 2023.

(9)

Following the entry into force of the temporary suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 the Commission has launched an enhanced dialogue with Vanuatu with a view to remedying the circumstances that gave rise to that suspension.

(10)

Although the enhanced dialogue with Vanuatu commenced on 12 May 2022, subsequently Vanuatu has not engaged in any meaningful way. During the nine-month period set down by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/693, it has therefore not been possible to remedy the circumstances which gave rise to the temporary suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement.

(11)

The investor citizenship schemes operated by Vanuatu continue to represent an increased risk to the internal security of the Member States and a circumvention of the Union short-stay visa procedure and of the assessment of security and migratory risks it entails. In the absence of engagement by Vanuatu as regards remedying those circumstances, Decision (EU) 2022/366 should therefore be repealed and the application of the Agreement in whole as regards all nationals of Vanuatu should be suspended.

(12)

This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (6). Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

(1)

The Treaty establishing the Transport Community (1) (TCT) was signed by the Union in accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2017/1937 (2). On 4 March 2019 it was approved on behalf of the Union by means of Council Decision (EU) 2019/392 (3). It entered into force on 1 May 2019.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 35 TCT, the Regional Steering Committee of the Transport Community (‘the Steering Committee’) is to adopt the budget of the Transport Community every year. Article 35 TCT also empowers the Steering Committee to adopt decisions specifying the procedure for the implementation of the budget.

(3)

The Steering Committee is to adopt a decision on the budget of the Transport Community for 2023 during its last meeting in 2022.

(4)

The proposed budget of the Transport Community for 2023 is needed for the proper functioning of the bodies of the Transport Community. It covers the costs of human resources, travel, IT equipment and software, as well as operational expenditure such as studies, capacity-building, technical assistance and the organisation of conferences and meetings.

(5)

It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the Steering Committee concerning the decision on the adoption of the budget of the Transport Community for the year 2023, as such a decision, which is necessary for the functioning of the Permanent Secretariat of the Transport Community, will be binding on the Union.

(6)

The position of the Union within the Steering Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,

(1)

By Council Decision 97/836/EC (1), the Union acceded to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (‘UNECE’) concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (the ‘Revised 1958 Agreement’). The Revised 1958 Agreement entered into force on 24 March 1998.

(2)

By Council Decision 2000/125/EC (2), the Union acceded to the Agreement concerning the establishing of global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles (the ‘Parallel Agreement’). The Parallel Agreement entered into force on 15 February 2000.

(3)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) lays down the administrative provisions and technical requirements for type-approval and the placing on the market of all new vehicles, systems, components and separate technical units. That Regulation incorporates regulations adopted under the Revised 1958 Agreement (‘UN regulations’) in the EU type-approval system, either as requirements for type-approval or as alternatives to Union legislation.

(4)

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Revised 1958 Agreement and Article 6 of the Parallel Agreement, the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (‘UNECE WP.29’) may adopt proposals for modifications to UN regulations, UN global technical regulations (‘UN GTRs’) and UN resolutions, and proposals for new UN regulations, UN GTRs and UN resolutions on the approval of vehicles. Moreover, pursuant to those provisions, UNECE WP.29 may adopt proposals for authorisations to develop amendments to UN GTRs or to develop new UN GTRs, and may adopt proposals for the extension of mandates for UN GTRs.

(5)

UNECE WP.29, during the 188th session of the World Forum to be held from 14 to 16 November 2022, may adopt: proposals for modifications to UN regulations Nos 0, 13, 24, 34, 43, 48, 67, 83, 90, 118, 125, 127, 129, 149, 151, 158, 159, 161, 162 and 163; a proposal for a new UN regulation on vulnerable road users in front and side close proximity; a proposal for a new UN regulation on the approval of motor vehicles with regard to their direct vision; and a proposal for an amendment to UN mutual resolution No 1.

(6)

The UN regulations will be binding on the Union. Together with the UN resolution, they will decisively influence the content of Union law in the field of vehicle type-approval. Therefore, it is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in UNECE WP.29 on the adoption of those proposals.

(7)

To reflect experience and technical developments, the requirements for certain aspects or features covered by UN regulations Nos 0, 13, 24, 34, 43, 48, 67, 83, 90, 118, 125, 127, 129, 149, 151, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163 and UN mutual resolution No 1 need to be amended or supplemented.

(8)

To reflect technical progress, improve vehicle safety and reduce the vulnerability of road users, a new UN regulation on vulnerable road users in front and side close proximity and a new UN regulation on the approval of motor vehicles with regard to their direct vision need to be adopted,

(1)

On 13 November 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (1), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela.

(2)

On 11 November 2021, the Council, considering the ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela and the persistent actions undermining democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, adopted Decision (CFSP) 2021/1965 (2) which renewed the restrictive measures in place until 14 November 2022, including all designations.

(3)

The Council has reviewed the restrictive measures in place in accordance with Article 13 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074. Based on that review, the restrictive measures, including all designations, should be renewed until 14 November 2023, and the statement of reasons for 17 persons should be updated.

(4)

These measures do not affect the general population and can be reversed in light of progress made towards the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Venezuela.

(5)

Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 should therefore be amended accordingly,